Thread: Daniel 9:24-27 Board: Kerygmania / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002383
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Deep, deep down in Dead Horses, Jamat invited me to consider this particular passage in Daniel and to answer the following questions:
'Is it predictive of Christ? Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part? Who is the prince who is to come? Who are the ‘people’ of Daniel?'
The context was a discussion of how 'prophecy' works in the scriptures, whether it is predictive or whether it's a case that subsequent generations (notably the early Christians) interpreted and applied writings originally addressed to specific situations in Israel's history in a Messianic way in relation to Christ.
In this thread I invite Shipmates to give their answers to Jamat's questions. That way, we can all see (he foretells, hopefully! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) how wide a range of interpretations there are.
To kick off, here's my take:
Firstly, an obvious place to start is by saying that I'm very aware of how these verses are understood and interpreted among various 'tribes' within evangelicalism, the tradition I probably know best.
Secondly, I'll readily acknowledge never being entirely convinced of the elaborate schemas devised to explain what the 'seventy sevens' and so forth stand for - nor the way the 'sealing up of vision and prophecy' (v.24) was customarily applied in highly conservative circles.
But that is to step outside of Jamat's original question.
'Is it predictive of Christ?'
Yes, I'd say so as the early Church seems to have intepreted it that way. Does that mean that it's original application was as a prophecy of Christ?
No, I don't think so. Rather, I'd suggest it had contemporary relevance and application whenever it was written (late date, early date, take your pick). Subsequently, it helped the development of Jewish ideas of a coming Messiah which the early Christians then 'recognised' and applied to Christ.
So if it is predictive, it is not predictive in a 'mechanical' sense ... if that makes sense.
It's predictive in the sense of being discerned to be so by later readers.
Is prophecy, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder? I'm still working on that one ...
Jamat's second question: 'Is it totally fulfilled or is there a future unfulfilled part?'
Again, I am very aware of how these verses and references/echoes of them in the Gospels are understood within conversative evangelical circles and within Dispensationalism in particular.
My cop out answer would be, 'Who knows? Wait and see ...'
A more considered answer would be, 'I can see why people interpret these as having some kind of future fulfilment as there appears to be some kind of future loose-ends or foretelling going on in the Gospels, using these or similar tropes.'
But again, there are other ways of understanding this. People have applied them to the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 of course. There are other ways to interpret and understand them too.
That's the nature of prophecy and the nature of apocalyptic writings.
We can interpret and apply them to a wide variety of things. There are references to the destruction of Jerusalem - to an end of sacrifice and offering. This has happened several times - with the defilement of the Second Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman destruction of the Temple in AD 70, the exiles and devastation caused by Hadrian ...
Likewise, 'the abomination that causes desolation' is capable of being understood in various ways.
Some see it as a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes which sparked the Maccabean revolt. Some see it as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (whether foretold by Christ or redacted by Gospel writers after the event). Some see it as having some future fulfilment.
There's even a school of thought I've come across recently that suggests that when Christ used it he was applying it to his own death - certainly an abomination that caused desolation in one sense.
So it can be applied to a number of possibilities. All carry some weight.
My own 'take' would be that it's most likely to be a reference to the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes and that it became a by-word for sacriligious or outrageous acts/persecution by Gentiles etc etc ...
Am I looking for some future fulfilment in terms of events in Jerusalem? No, but given the history of religious violence in the region then there are all sorts of things that could happen which people could interpret as fulfilment of these verses.
Do I attempt to fit this and other references into some kind of elaborate eschatological schema?
No, I don't and I am highly suspicious of any movements or schools of thought that do.
Jamat's third question 'Who is the prince who is to come?'
Again, there could be all kinds of candidates for that if we take this as some kind of predictive prophecy. I'm not prepared to speculate. It's a waste of time.
I don't 'ignore' or overlook it, but I am happy to leave it as a reference to events involving the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple - and that's happened several times.
Jamat's fourth question, 'Who are the "people" of Daniel.'
I presume that Jamat is referring to the 'many' of Daniel 9:27 (NKJV), rather than the 'people of the prince who is to come' of verse 26.
Well, the obvious inference is that Daniel is referring to his own people, the Jews or those among them who accept the covenant or treaty mentioned in verse 27. Again, there would be a number of ways to interpret that - by relating it to historical events or making it 'fit' some known occurence, or else (as Jamat presumably does) by projecting it into the future for some ultimate fulfilment according to his particular eschatological schema.
I'm not inclined to follow him down that route.
Nor do I 'require' there to be clear-cut and dried answers to these questions.
I am happy to live with a degree of ambiguity and mystery.
My faith doesn't stand or fall by there 'having' to be some neat tying up of loose-ends.
I've heard plenty of sermons and read plenty of explanations, none of which sound entirely convincing. It's a red-herring to expect these things to dove-tail neatly as some kind of seamless schema.
That's not how these things work.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
I was in a Bible study once where someone said that prophecies can be fulfilled more than once. The fact that a certain past event appears to fulfill a certain prophecy does not mean that prophecy cannot be fulfilled again.
I'm passing this along as an interesting idea. I'm one of those people who is not all that interested in prophecy, except as a general indication of God's interest and care for us.
Moo
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It is interesting, Moo, but I suspect it simply underlines a point I was trying to make about it being in the nature of prophetic/apocalyptic writings to be sufficiently elastic to be applied to all manner of things/circumstances.
So, for instance, the 'abomination that causes desolation' is so flexible a term that it could be applied to anything the Jews considered sacrilegious - be it a statue of a ruler and the sacrifice of pigs in the Temple; the marching standards of Roman legions placed near or inside the Holy Holies; the death of Christ even ...
To apply it to a literal future time of Temple offering and sacrifice, the Anti-Christ or Man of Sin etc etc can result in the development of the kind of overly literal schemas I've been talking about ... requiring the literal re-establishment of the Temple and the Jewish sacrificial system etc. All of which enters the realm of pure speculation.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Here is Chapter 9 of Daniel. I linked the entire chapter for context.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I don't think I can accept predictive prophecy in the way Jamat understands it, but I'd like to think my objection is based on the Bible and the nature of Christianity.
The problem ISTM is that predictive prophecy leads to a variant on the grandfather paradox. If it's prophesied that something bad will happen, and you believe the prophecy, then you will take steps to make sure it doesn't. If you succeed, then the future foreseen by the prophet no longer exists and there is nothing for him to foresee.
Now AIUI this was not a problem for the pagan Greeks because they believed the future was fixed and unchangeable even by the gods, and so any steps you took to prevent a prophecy from happening would in fact be part of the set of events that cause that prophecy to be fulfilled. Laius and Jocasta receive a prophecy that their son Oedipus would murder his father and marry his mother, so they expose him. Consequently, he grows up not knowing who his parents are, so nothing tells him not to kill Laius or marry Jocasta.
By contrast the Bible, ISTM, teaches that the future is not immutable and human choices do matter. Jonah prophesies that Nineveh will be destroyed, so the Ninevites repent, and it isn't. Isaiah tells Hezekiah that he won't recover from his illness; Hezekiah repents, and lives fifteen years longer.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As said in the closed
"Daniel 9: Taken as 69 (=62+7) – all driven by Jeremiah's 70 year Exile prophecy (Jer. 25:12) - x 7 = 483 years. To make that tie up with Christ's death in 30-33 one has to use 'prophetic years' (Revelation 12:6, 14 (cf. Dan 7:25; 12:7)) of 360 days to get back to the warrant given to Nehemiah in 445(a) odd to rebuild the temple. All very Dispensationalist.
And I can accept it. All. Whether it was written around 200 or 600 BCE. As miraculous revelation from God of His intent. Because again, He doesn't have to do anything. Nothing intrusive, coercive, nasty. Un-Christlike. All He had to do was ensure that Nehemiah got the warrant and that was followed through, and incarnate ( 483 x 360 ) / 365.25 = 476 = 445(a) + 30 odd years later. Despite there being a perfectly good... historical-critical solution* that avoids prophecy. He didn't have to passively see a future that didn't exist by magic. He couldn't have worked it out like 500 years of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Roman dominance, it's too detailed. He had to intervene, minimally. Fine.
*62 'weeks' (428 if 'prophetic', 434 if not) from 605/4 or 539/8 or 458/7 or 445/4 giving us 177/6 or 171/0, 111/0 or 105/4, 30/29 or 24/3 and 17/6 or 11/0 BCE in which the 605/4 – 434 one in eight permutation gives us the 'an anointed one... cut off'; high priest Onias III's murder. Montgomery's “dismal swamp” of critical exegesis indeed! Rationalistically it's the only answer."
But He didn't. Intervene. Any more than He inspired foretelling prophecy. In Daniel 9. He inspired apocalyptic. He inspired the apocalyptic recording of history as it had unfolded in Daniel 9 and 10-11.
There is nothing prophetic of Jesus here, just a normal, common recurring anthropological trope throughout Jewish and other oppressed cultures which Jesus and His apologists more so, particularly Matthew, arrogated. Rightly.
Daniel was no seer. Nobody was. Including Jesus of course. Not by any rationally faithful criteria.
[ 01. January 2018, 14:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
[ 09. January 2018, 21:08: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I'm no longer into this sort of thing. However, if someone is going with the idea that God literally dictated scripture, then God could've intended additional meanings, prophecies, resonances that the person taking dictation wasn't aware of.
If you believe the entire Bible is literally given by God and infallible in the original manuscripts, then the Bible becomes a wonderful call and response. A symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes.
If that's what Jamat believes, then what he says makes some sense.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course it makes sense, but it only makes sense in its own terms and within its own fairly narrow and somewhat hermetically sealed frame of reference.
It can become highly reductionist. It's not a corset but a strait-jacket.
It's as if there's no room for mystery, as if we have to tie up all loose-ends.
It becomes a closed system.
To an extent, yes - there are parameters, guidelines, frames of reference.
The issue, it seems to me is how tightly we tie the knots. If we operate within a system that every single verse and reference must have an equal and corresponding reference somewhere else within the corpus otherwise we begin to get jumpy, then we are going to start looking for patterns and principles that appear to make it all 'fit'.
That's what Dispensationalism does and it's an enticing option and prospect if one is inclined to want everything to be neatly packaged and tied up.
I understand the motivation, but not the execution. It becomes forced and contrived as proponents try to vire everything into fit.
I think it's unfair though to accuse Jamat of promoting a 'dictation' theory of divine inspiration. He doesn't appear to regard the scriptures as a form of 'automatic writing' or dictated in some way as Muslim fundamentalists seem to believe in the case of the Quran.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As for the Bible being a symphony with repeating themes and snatches of themes - well yes, I don't have an issue with that at all.
That's how I approach scripture.
So, yes, Revelation picks up on themes and imagery from Daniel, Ezekiel and so on. There are echoes, references, parallels ...
Absolutely.
It's rather like T S Eliot's Four Quartets where themes are repeated and developed as though in a piece of music.
I'm all in favour of that.
I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Actually, I wasn't accusing Jamat of anything. I grew up with the church teachings I mentioned. Most of that is in my "don't know" stack (along with just about everything else in life).
I read your posts, Gamaliel, as saying that his beliefs didn't make any sense. And I'm surprised to hear that you want some mystery--that seems the opposite of what you were posting.
Did I misread you?
I just thought that maybe I could shed a little light on what Jamat was saying.
I'm tired, so I'll stop now. Will try to check back in the next couple of days.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Apart from Jesus' single Marcan reference used by the Matthew school, which isn't related to Jesus Himself. That's the point. Jesus never used Daniel to see Himself. Interesting that.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!
Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.
Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?
You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I just think that some of the harmonising in Schofield and writers/commentators of that ilk is pretty forced at times.
Wow really? But you NEVER have anything to say about specifics or any genuine alternative readings. When, for instance Messiah was cut off and had nothing, this is undeniably a prophetic reference to the crucifixion. So, given there are 70 weeks and Messiah dies after 69..pretty accurate..what has happened to the 70th week?
You have a very accurate fulfilled prediction but then..a puzzle. The accuracy of the first part betokens a genuine prophecy. Do you say the second part is wrong? ..but Jesus refers to it in Matt 24:15 so it can’t be! The only solution is that the 70th week is still future, despite actions of Antiochus IV who certainly did desecrate the temple but many years before.
All you are doing is proving my point about there being people who want to batten down all the hatches and tie up apparent loose ends.
Other posters have gone into the specifics and provided alternative readings and so on. I'm reasonably conversant with the scriptures - signs of a better-spent youth ... but I don't have time to go poring over prophecies with a pocket-calculator trying to work out when the 39th, 49th, 59th or 69th week was fulfilled.
That's not how I approach scripture.
As it happens, yes, I do see a Messianic 'anticipation' or reference in Daniel 9 and it does 'fit' the events around the crucifixion - but that doesn't necessarily imply a commutive direct equivalence thing ... we are talking about echoes, parallels, 'this is that ...'
As for the reference to the 'abomination that causes desolation' in Matthew 24:15 - well yes, this is Jesus picking up on and applying a reference in Daniel to his own times and ministry - and there are various hypotheses as to what he was referring to.
- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?
- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?
- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?
One can argue the case for each, and I daresay other alternatives besides.
Fair enough.
What I wouldn't do is to present any one 'take' or interpretation as to what it might be as the cast-iron last-word on anything.
That sounds a reasonable position to me as we're dealing with mysteries and prophecy not with a cross-word puzzle or some kind of verbal Meccano-set or an Ikea assembly diagram that somehow (eventually) all fits.
No, we are dealing with something a lot deeper and richer than that.
I'm sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating, but I'm not prepared to play the kind of interpretative games that Schofield, Darby, Anderson and others indulged in. I don't see the point. I don't think they get us anywhere.
We see as through a glass darkly, but we still see.
I'm all for picking up on the harmonies and strands in scripture. I love it. What I don't do is concoct a join-the-dots or Painting By Numbers approach to working out how they all fit.
Speculating about whether there is an as yet unfulfilled '70th week' dangling around out there awaiting the final count-down strikes me as a complete waste of time and energy.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!
Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”
Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.
And a prophet isn't a seer.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!
Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”
Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.
And a prophet isn't a seer.
You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Or not answers you'd like to hear.
There is a difference.
I have given answers, even if they are in the form of questions.
Like so:
Matthew 24:15 What is the 'abomination that causes desolation'?
- Is it the destruction of The Temple in AD 70?
- Is it his own death, as some commentators have postulated?
- Is it a future event yet to be fulfilled?
I can't see what's wrong with that as an answer as it could be any one of those or a combination of all three - or it could be other options I've not listed.
Plenty of posters, Ricardus, Eutychus, Martin60 (when I can follow what he's saying), Nick Tamen and many others have put forward possible answers and solutions whether on this thread or on the 'apocalyptic literature' thread or the Dead Horses thread about scriptural inspiration.
Somehow, none of these are 'good enough' for you.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Gamaliel: I’m sure you find my answers unsatisfactory, equivocal and frustrating
Not at all, it is obvious you simply have no answers.
Jamat, we have been warned by Hosts and Admins that posts of this nature belong in Hell.
I think this one deserves a Hell call.
May I cordially invite you to the Nether Regions?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Daniel was no seer.
Not sure what YOUR point was in all this Martin 60, but the point is not made that Daniel was no seer.
He wasn't according to Jesus or any of His contemporaries.
You are making it up as you go along!
Matt 24:15..”When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the PROPHET..”
Just like Jesus, although He never used Daniel to validate Himself. Funny that.
And a prophet isn't a seer.
You ARE just making it up as you go along..oh well.
Yep, just like Jesus.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
OK, because I know everyone is anxious to hear more about the 360-day prophetic year.
The story so far: on the DH thread Jamat presented a scheme by a chap called Sir Robert Anderson which requires us to suppose that Daniel's weeks refer to seven years of 360 days each. Scriptural support for a 360-day year comes from the calendar dates of the flood in Genesis.
My objection to this is a.) a lunar cycle is 29.5 days, so a 30-day month would quite quickly lose the connection between the new moon and the new month, and b.) at least some Hebrew festivals are tied to the seasons, specifically to the harvest, and it would be impossible to do this unless your year at least averaged 365.25 days (e.g. by intercalation). Therefore whatever the Genesis passage means, it doesn't mean a 360-day year.
Jamat's response was that Sir Robert Anderson had an answer to this and that I should read him. Regretfully, I have not been able to find him online, but the objections above are so obvious that I was reasonably certain that dispensationalists would have responses to them, so I have browsed quite a lot of websites in search of those responses.
Firstly I found a quote from Anderson:
quote:
It is noteworthy that the prophecy was given at Babylon, and the Babylonian year consisted of twelve months of thirty days. That the prophetic year is not the ordinary year is no new discovery. It was noticed sixteen centuries ago by Julias Africanus in his Chronography, wherein he explains the seventy weeks to be weeks of Jewish (lunar) years, beginning with the twentieth of Artaxerxes, the fourth year of the 83rd Olympiad, and ending in the second year of the 202nd Olympiad; 475 Julian years being equal to 490 lunar years.
This would be quite neat, except that:
1.) the Babylonian calendar does not have 30-day months, but alternates 29- and 30-day months just like the Hebrew calendar;
2.) Julius Africanus in fact assumes a year of 354 days, which is the Jewish calendar without intercalary months - this is obvious in that he arrives at a figure of 475 Julian years whereas Anderson has 477 Julian years;
3.) If the Babylonian calendar did have 30-day months, then by definition it wouldn't be a lunar calendar;
4.) It still doesn't explain my objection (b) above.
Among the numerous dispensationalist websites I browsed I could find only two other responses to my objections:
1.) That the length of the lunar and solar cycles changed at some point in history - possibly as a consequence of the Flood and/or Hezekiah's shadow;
2.) That Hebrew months weren't in origin lunar.
(1) I think is an application of Poe's Law. Regarding (2), I'm not sure there is anything in the Bible that explicitly says the months are lunar but the idea that they weren't goes against everything we know about the Hebrew calendar - and it likewise doesn't resolve my objection (b).
So I think I agree with Eutychus' comment on the DH thread - that this sort of exposition creates more problems than it solves; in order to explain an apparent dating discrepancy in Genesis, we have to suppose that the entire solar system reorganised itself without leaving any astronomical trace. I'd also say that points 1-4 are evidence that Sir Robert Anderson doesn't know what he's talking about.
[ 20. January 2018, 08:28: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well done Ricardus.
I think we can all agree that there is a theological term for dear old Anderson's eschatological speculations:
Bollocks.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well done Ricardus.
I think we can all agree that there is a theological term for dear old Anderson's eschatological speculations:
Bollocks.
You can agree all by yourself if you want. There has been nothing in anything you have posted on the topic to suggest that you have considered or understood his reasoning.
Ricardus has actually argued from outside scripture that the 360 day lunar year used clearly within scripture is unworkable. What he said is beside the point. What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.
[ 22. January 2018, 20:53: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Why should I give any credence to his claims?
I've he's enough pre-millenialist claptrap in my time. The whole thing is a red herring and a distraction. I wouldn't even give it the time of day and I'm not aware of any serious theologians who do.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why should I give any credence to his claims?
I've he's enough pre-millenialist claptrap in my time. The whole thing is a red herring and a distraction. I wouldn't even give it the time of day and I'm not aware of any serious theologians who do.
So you keep asserting. However, you never have specifically engaged or explained why you dismiss them. It is all bluff and bluster. What serious theologians? What arguments do they put forward that dismiss pre-millenialism? If you go for the big T lot then you have an amillenialist case where church replaces Israel. How is this justified? It has led to Catholic support of antisemitism.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.
Well, that’s a convenient way to dismiss counter-arguments you don’t agree with—“they’re just unwilling to consider the argument on its merits.” It strikes me as a somewhat ad hominem defense, attacking the motives of the arguer rather than their merits of the argument.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What is evident from within scripture is that Anderson’s line of thinking stands up to scrutiny and is dismissed only by those unwilling to consider its claims.
Well, that’s a convenient way to dismiss counter-arguments you don’t agree with—“they’re just unwilling to consider the argument on its merits.” It strikes me as a somewhat ad hominem defense, attacking the motives of the arguer rather than their merits of the argument.
Really? That would have some credibility if anyone HAD specifically engaged and there was an argument whose merits one could judge. No one has. All they have said or implied is that Premillenialism is ‘a priori’ false because it’s part of the ‘false’ theology they dabbled in in the past but have now outgrown.
And yet of all the eschatological schemes, it is the only one that seeks to fully encompass the OT, the only one that fully respects the Bible as inspired and the only one where specific OT prophecies concerning the manifestation of the Messiah and the exile/restoration pattern of Jewish history are explained.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You should add a caveat to that, 'explained speculatively.'
The only merit I can see in such schemes is that they do avoid the anti-Semitism that was inherent and endemic in the older and historic Churches and which was inherited by the Reformers.
However,it does that at the expense of toppling over into questionable exegesis and sometimes into pro-Zionist territory.
For the record, I never signed up for pre-millenialist schemes in the first place so it's not something I 'grew out of'. I encountered it early on as I attended a Brethren assembly but I never became a member nor did I take it on board. I found it pretty unconvincing from the get-go ..
All that Hal Lindley stuff and quotes from The Reader's Digest about vultures in the Negev ...
Ok, I'm sure there are guys out there who could have made a better fist of it but there are no mainstream theologians or seminaries that major on this stuff. Ok, there's Dallas but one could argue that it's something of an outlier.
The issue is that it seeks to solve one problem and only ends up introducing a shed load of others - an Eutychus has identified some of these during previous discussions.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really? That would have some credibility if anyone HAD specifically engaged and there was an argument whose merits one could judge. No one has. All they have said or implied is that Premillenialism is ‘a priori’ false because it’s part of the ‘false’ theology they dabbled in in the past but have now outgrown.
Ricardus’s response simply cannot he described this way, nor can it be summarily dismissed with “he just doesn’t understand Anderson’s argument.”
quote:
And yet of all the eschatological schemes, it is . . . the only one that fully respects the Bible as inspired . . . .
So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I think it's quite important here to distinguish between two different versions of 'pre-millennialism'.
There is what might be called a 'simple' pre-millenialism which says "At some time in the future Jesus returns and his return introduces an earthly millennial kingdom".
And there is the early 19th-century view, derived from Irving via Darby and as far as I can discover previously unknown, in which
"At some time in the future Jesus returns to remove his Church from the Earth (the 'Rapture') while leaving everybody else behind to go through the events of the Tribulation and the rule of the Antichrist, after which Jesus returns again (again!) to defeat the Antichrist and initiate the Millennial kingdom".
I gave on a previous thread my analysis of why that latter view is wrong. As a quick summary, Irving's original view was a simple pre-millennialism but combined with a heavy stress on the imminent Second Coming - as in, you were supposed to believe that it had to be possibly 'any minute now'. In the hothouse atmosphere of 'prophetic conferences' which arose out of Irving's teachings, they found awkward prophecies which
A) clearly hadn't been fulfilled yet, and
B) didn't fit in the Millennium or after it, yet
C) also couldn't be fitted in before the Millennium if the Second Advent was supposed to be 'any minute now'.
This - to my view completely artificial and unnecessary - dilemma was resolved by the idea of a Second Advent that was followed by an intermediate period before the Millennium in which these unfulfilled prophecies could be fulfilled....
Of course in the event the Second Coming was not 'any minute now', and in the nearly two centuries since that theory was produced at least one major item that worried them then has in fact been fulfilled, the establishment of the nation of Israel. (Either that or we've all been 'left behind' not just for seven years but now at least seventy...)
That theory was really not truly biblical interpretation but a fixation on a questionable meaning of one idea and then making all other interpretation fit that artificial requirement.
Simple pre-Millennialism is more plausible. I think it is still wrong, but has nowhere near the problems of the 'Left Behind' thinking. Basically the issue is how you interpret Revelation - is it a straightforward chronological work in which, after the initial 'letters to the churches', what is recounted in chapter four is followed by the events of chapter five, five by six and so on? Or does it follow a different scheme?
If it is simply straight chronology, then obviously history runs to the end of chapter 19 and the the Millennium begins as a separate period, after which the true 'end of the world', the judgement and the new heavens and earth, as recounted in the rest of the book.
But if Revelation is on a different scheme...?
The main contender is some form of 'parallelism' which sees the book as repeatedly looking at the whole 'Gospel Age' in different aspects. In such a view the Millennial passage in Rev 20 is not a separate period of history but a kind of 'summary/recap' before moving on at the end of the book to the judgement and re-creation. For example the battle in Rev 20; 9-10 would actually be the same battle as in Rev 19.
This would presumably make a difference to how the Daniel passage would be interpreted.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: As a quick summary, Irving's original view was a simple pre-millennialism but combined with a heavy stress on the imminent Second Coming - as in, you were supposed to believe that it had to be possibly 'any minute now'. In the hothouse atmosphere of 'prophetic conferences' which arose out of Irving's teachings, they found awkward prophecies which
A) clearly hadn't been fulfilled yet, and
B) didn't fit in the Millennium or after it, yet
C) also couldn't be fitted in before the Millennium if the Second Advent was supposed to be 'any minute now'.
This - to my view completely artificial and unnecessary - dilemma was resolved by the idea of a Second Advent that was followed by an intermediate period before the Millennium in which these unfulfilled prophecies could be fulfilled....
Well that is not any kind of quick summary. It is a generalised mishmash of misinformation. As with most here I suspect you have no more than a generalised inaccurate overview of premillennial teaching.
The motivation for it is the need to specifically engage with prophecy. The major principle of it is the separation of the church from Israel the unfulfilled prophecies concerning Israel and the necessity for it is that problematic paradoxical statements that concern the second coming in the New Testament.
How anyone could suggest that such concerns are not important or that attempts to deal with them are artificial and unnecessary, suggests a theology that does not take scripture seriously.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.
You have indeed suggested them. You stated that “of all the eschatological schemes, [Anderson’s] is . . . the [/i]only one[/i] that fully respects the Bible as inspired.” The emphasis is mine but the words are yours, and I don’t know how else to read them other than as a statement that no understanding but yours and Anderson’s “fully respects the Bible as inspired.”
But I’m happy to accept the clarification that that is not what you’re asserting.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Nick Tamen: So nobody before Sir Robert Anderson fully respected the Bible as inspired? Nobody who disagrees with you fully respects the Bible as inspired? Is that really what you’re asserting?
I have neither implied or suggested either of these things Nick rather merely observed that criticism is general and rather pathetically uninformed.
You have indeed suggested them. You stated that “of all the eschatological schemes, [Anderson’s] is . . . the [/i]only one[/i] that fully respects the Bible as inspired.” The emphasis is mine but the words are yours, and I don’t know how else to read them other than as a statement that no understanding but yours and Anderson’s “fully respects the Bible as inspired.”
But I’m happy to accept the clarification that that is not what you’re asserting.
yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You seem to be asserting what you denied earlier, when Nick Tamen challenged you, Jamat ... that anyone who doesn't take premillenialism seriously doesn't take scripture seriously.
Well I don't take premillenialism at all seriously.
Yet I take scripture very seriously indeed.
So do lots of other people who are unconvinced by premillenial speculations and assumptions.
The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.
The words chosen and the way they are used are yours.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
yes, well context is everything. The assumptions you make are yours not mine.
The words chosen and the way they are used are yours.
They are indeed and unless the context of the particular discourse is in view, they can be misleading. There is no intention to impugn anyone or to suggest Robert Anderson was the only trustworthy expositor up to that point. I do not think he is correct in every detail and have said as much. Herbert W Armstrong made such a claim. Anderson did not and nor did I on his behalf.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You seem to be asserting what you denied earlier, when Nick Tamen challenged you, Jamat ... that anyone who doesn't take premillenialism seriously doesn't take scripture seriously.
Well I don't take premillenialism at all seriously.
Yet I take scripture very seriously indeed.
So do lots of other people who are unconvinced by premillenial speculations and assumptions.
The onus is on you to prove otherwise.
I am sure you do take scripture very seriously. What speculations and assumptions in particular?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, granted, but you are making the claim that those who don't adopt your particular take on these things are somehow failing to take the scriptures as seriously as you do.
Which sounds somewhat hubristic to me. I'm sure it's not intended that way though.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I cross-posted.
'Speculations and assumptions'?
We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.
Just sayin'.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I cross-posted.
'Speculations and assumptions'?
We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.
Just sayin'.
So..where is there a leap that you think unwarranted?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I am not sure if this belongs here or on the Dead Horses thread.
Some 30 or more years ago, I started to read some Anderson. Now starting is all I did, probably 100 - 125 pages in all, but that was enough. I had these conclusions:
1. Anderson was extremely tedious to read.
2. He made a whole series of assumptions which underlay his theories. The length of the year was one. He did not provide any argument in support of these.
3. His thinking was not something with which anyone could grapple as basically there was no thinking apparent, certainly none that anyone could grapple with.
Jamat's referred somewhere to Anderson's police history. It's pretty apparent that this career owes a lot to the influence of his father and other family members - for example, he was sacked once for incompetence, but a few months later mysteriously was reappointed.
Jamat, some time ago, I asked you for your estimate of the age of the phoenix. Do you have any thoughts please?
[ 24. January 2018, 07:00: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I cross-posted.
'Speculations and assumptions'?
We all make hermeneutical leaps. It strikes me that many Dispensationalists make those without being aware that this is what they are doing.
Just sayin'.
So..where is there a leap that you think unwarranted?
Where do you want me to start?
More seriously, I acknowledged that all of us make these kind of leaps. What happens, it seems me, is that Dispensationalists can be more reluctant to acknowledge these leaps than others are ...
In the same way, certain highly conservative Christians are reluctant to acknowledge that their views are part of a tradition (small t) because to them any kind of t carries negative connotations.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Soo..start with the biggest leap.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat
quote:
How anyone could suggest that such concerns are not important or that attempts to deal with them are artificial and unnecessary, suggests a theology that does not take scripture seriously.
The concerns are important and attempts to deal with them are necessary. However, I find that one particular attempt is 'artificial' because in the enthusiastic reaction to Irving's ideas an unnecessary and only apparent paradox was created. That was the paradox between an insistence that one had to believe in an 'any minute now' Second Coming and the discovery that there were unfulfilled prophecies that didn't easily fit that idea.
They could have followed the example of Paul advising the Thessalonians who had got a bit over-enthusiastic about the Advent; he reminded them that they would need to wait for certain prophecies about the 'Man of Sin' to be fulfilled, and so should in effect scale back from 'Red Alert' to a more moderate but still watchful level of expectation. I would suggest that this would also have been an appropriate reaction for Irving and his followers.
Instead the early 19thC prophetic enthusiasts continued to insist on an 'any minute now' Advent and had to find an explanation of the unfulfilled prophecies which would fit that. And somebody came up with the idea of an Advent which took the Church away but left the world to carry on for a while until the prophecies had been fulfilled. According to one account the initial idea came from a 'prophet' - Irving had also experimented with re-introducing charismatic gifts.
So as far as I'm concerned that particular 'attempt' to deal with the concerns is 'artificial and unnecessary' arising from a questionable understanding of the way one should expect the Advent.
Simple pre-millennialism is a significantly different idea to the elaborate 'Rapture followed by Tribulation before the Millennium' theory.
Question - where except in Rev 20 is there any specific unambiguous mention of the Millennial Kingdom as a distinct intermediate period?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Soo..start with the biggest leap.
One small step for a man ...
One of the issues here is that anything I put forward as a 'leap', whether a short hop or a giant stride, you are going to deny to be one. I've seen you do that before.
Instead, you will insist on it being the 'plain reading of the text', because that's the assumption you are making and the paradigm you are working with.
So anything I say, however well argued or poorly put, is going to be dismissed.
I'm sorry, but that's how I see it.
Accepting that it's a forlorn hope and your dice are already stacked against me, I submit the following as interpretive leaps. I am not going to stack them according to how long or short a leap I think they are.
FWIW, though, I'm essentially in agreement with Steve Langton (wonders have never ceased) in that I can see that a 'straightforward' belief in the Second Advent followed by a Millenial Reign is a short step from a particular reading of scripture, but that the elaborate yo-yo return in several phases approach favoured by pre-tribulation Rapture enthusiasts is something of a longer leap - or perhaps something achieved via a series of stepping stones that have to be put in place to make it work.
So, interpretive leaps:
- The assumption that prophecies in apocalyptic passages are necessarily predictive.
- The assumption that certain figurative tropes are to be taken more literally than is necessarily the case.
- The assumption that figurative language and symbolic/allegorical use of numbers are to be treated as actual forecasts of time-scaled events.
I could go on.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
@Gee D
Might one ask why one is repeatedly asking Jamat for an estimate of the age of the phoenix? Is this an antipodean thing? Or something else esoteric? It can't be any older than 6021 years obviously. Nothing is.
[ 24. January 2018, 12:07: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Gee D
Might one ask why one is repeatedly asking Jamat for an estimate of the age of the phoenix? Is this an antipodean thing? Or something else esoteric? It can't be any older than 6021 years obviously. Nothing is.
Possibly for the same reason that Jamat keeps challenging me to prove him wrong by citing chapter and verse, because he thinks I can't ...
I do seem to remember a Phoenix reference in the dim and distant, but its significance is lost on me now.
Besides, unless I'm very much mistaken, there aren't any Phoenixes in the Bible so they don't count ...
There is a Phoenix in Tennessee though, and that seems to be the region that Jamat derives his theology from ...
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A few reasons, one of which Gamaliel has already given. Then to try to get Jamat to think outside a very idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture - perhaps to realise that he is involved in an interpretation at all. And because it is closely linked to Anderson and his errors.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
A few reasons, one of which Gamaliel has already given. Then to try to get Jamat to think outside a very idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture - perhaps to realise that he is involved in an interpretation at all. And because it is closely linked to Anderson and his errors.
Yes, I accept I interpret and have never denied this. What I assert is that denotative meaning is not interpretation. It is a step closer to the text and the subject of interpretation.
As to idiosyncratic interpretation? Well, as a reader, I differ. The Catholic liturgy, on the other hand, I find exceedingly idiosyncratic. The Matt 16 scripture said to justify the status of pope..now there’s an idiosyncrasy.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Who said anything about the Pope or the RC liturgy here?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course, if you are Protestant or Orthodox then the RC interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is going to look idiosyncratic. No doubt the RCs would claim that other interpretations are idiosyncratic.
But there's a degree of 'whataboutery' here. Just because the RCs are idiosyncratic in their views on the Papacy, it doesn't mean that the Dispensationalists aren't idiosyncratic in their particular views.
There are worse things than being idiosyncratic, of course. It depends how far the idiosyncrasy goes.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Gamaliel: interpretive leaps:
- The assumption that prophecies in apocalyptic passages are necessarily predictive.
So, in your view, was the birth of Jesus prophetically foretold?
To the topic of this thread..is the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy still to occur? If not when did it occur?
Did Daniel actually predict the rise of Alexander the Great and the rise of The 4th kingdom, Rome, even down to its division into 2 parts?
If the use of numbers is symbolic and allegorical why use such a precise denotative tool for a task that is intended to depict something non precise and allegorical? Who gets to interpret the allegory?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You know as well as I do that there are other candidates for the identity of the kingdoms listed in Daniel. The very nature of apocalyptic and prophetic literature makes it possible to apply the descriptions to a number of regimes and dynasties, quite apart from the dating issue - and that applies even if we go for an early date for Daniel rather than a late 2nd century BC one.
Was the birth of Christ foretold?
Yes, but the way that 'works' it seems to me now, is more by way of a growing body of Messianic expectation with foreshadowings, types and glimpses which the disciples discerned as references/fulfilments to aspects of 'the Christ event'.
Is the Second Advent foretold? Yes. And again, with the gradual emergence of an expectation of a future consummation of God's Kingdom through the Apocalyptic writings and elements within the teaching of Christ.
By their very nature such writings and teachings are cryptic - 'let the reader understand' - with allusions, parallels to previous prophecies and apocalyptic literature - and multi-layered.
There are strands, themes and tropes which convey a cumulative effect and declare that the 'kingdoms of this world will become the Kingdom of our God of his Christ.'
To postulate a spare 70th week that is still dangling around out there awaiting future fulfilment in a convoluted and multi-staged Second Advent - 'He's back! No he isn't ... he's gone away again and taken certain people with him ...' etc etc yadda yadda yadda, strikes me not only as completely unnecessary but a total waste of time.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
As to who gets to interpret the allegory (and I'd suggest that allegory is only one element, there are others) then the obvious answer is:
- The original audience and readers.
- Subsequent readers.
Did the original audience understand it the same way as us? Do we understand it the same way as they did?
Will people in 100,200, 500 years time understand it the same way that we do?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
So,
I make that a yes, no and a maybe.
If the first King of 'Grecia' was not Alexander the great, who died at the peak of power, left no progeny to inherit and whose realm was divided in 4, who is the other candidate?
If the 4th kingdom, after the Grecian, which was divided in 2 was not Rome in its east/west phase, what other candidates deserve consideration?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Make of it what you will, Jamat, the point is that prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine.
I am constantly surprised that you appear to think it is when you are someone who has apparently taught literature and written poetry.
Why use cryptic or apocalyptic and allusive language at at all? If you take the reference to Cyrus in Isaiah as predictive then why not have Daniel's vision simply stating, 'Then there'll be Alexander The Great and after him his short-lived empire will divide into various Hellenistic dynasties ...'?
If it was all easy-peasy lemon-squeezy plain and straightforward then we wouldn't even be having this conversation. We'd be saying, 'Ah, it's obvious isn't it? That's a reference to Alexander the Great, that's a reference to the Ptolomies, this one is a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, that one to ...'
Or, it's obvious isn't it? The 49th Week coincided with a Wednesday afternoon in such and such a month and such a year ...
There are any number of permutations.
What we can say is that some of the material appears to refer/closely resemble events in the 2nd century BCE - and some doesn't. Some of it appears to fit/resemble the rise of Greece and Rome, other elements don't seem to fit those events quite so closely.
It's like a kaleidoscope rather than a camera-obscura.
We could make out a case for the four successive kingdoms in Daniel's vision as Babylon, the Medes, Persia and the Seleucids.
Or we could make out a case for it being Babylon, Medeo-Persia and the Greeks and Romans.
The fact that is allegorical/symbolic makes it applicable to a number of interpretations. We may favour one of another, but a big bright light isn't going to appear on the wall above our heads with a flashing neon sign which says, 'Bingo! You got it right ...'
The point of the vision remains the same however we interpret the references/allusions.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Also, you don't get rid of the interpretive problems that easily if we go with Rome as the 4th kingdom with its east/west division from the 4th century AD onwards.
What possible benefit would it have been to readers in Daniel's time to have a prediction of a empire dividing into two some hundreds of years ahead?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
What would have been the relevance of that to a 6th century BC readership, let alone a 2nd century BC one?
You see how silly it gets?
'Ah, but Gamaliel, you see that's because there is a further Week that has yet to be fulfilled and I can explain that to you because smart people like Schofield and Anderson worked it all out from the scriptural clues ...'
Yeah, right.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine
But the ones I cited certainly are. Straightforward enough for unbelieving theologians to posit a late date for Daniel.
Please, Gamaliel, personal comments are unnecessary.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok. Apologies for personal comments.
But how is a late date for Daniel 'unbelieving' and how are the visiting and prophecies necessarily denotive unless we decide to make them so?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
prophetic and apocalyptic literature is nowhere near as 'denotatively' straightforward as you appear to imagine
But the ones I cited certainly are. Straightforward enough for unbelieving theologians to posit a late date for Daniel.
Please, Gamaliel, personal comments are unnecessary.
What's believing or not got to do with dating?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
The assumption is that they plump for a later date because they are infidels and don't believe in predictive prophecy or that the Book of Daniel was written contemporaneously with its 6th century BC setting.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I plump for a later date for the obvious late date stuff because I am fidel and believe in predictive prophecy. Of course it was started in the Babylonian exile, even by an actual Daniel. And God obviously contributed to it in the image of Daniel 2. I don't see how He'd have to pragmatically violently intervene to fulfil that.
Daniel 9 may well have been given to THE Daniel in 539, although it's interesting that the king is wrong. An easy mistake in the culture of four hundred years later, despite being accurate down to 167 BCE and significantly, again, not to 164.
But let's assume it's dated correctly, it doesn't violate God. But Daniel getting his king wrong is more than suspicious.
Daniel 11-12 - the Kings of the North and South - does. Violate God. There again so would 8 - the Ram and Goat (a great pub) - if it were prophecy, more evidence, not that any is needed, that 9, 11-12 aren't. 10 doesn't prophecy anything.
I want it all to be true, all to be dated from 605 to 539 and written by Daniel.
But there is no warrant for that.
Unless God is Killer.
Or worse.
[ 27. January 2018, 10:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The worse being that God is a B-theorist.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I plump for a later date for the obvious late date stuff because I am fidel and believe in predictive prophecy. Of course it was started in the Babylonian exile, even by an actual Daniel. And God obviously contributed to it in the image of Daniel 2. I don't see how He'd have to pragmatically violently intervene to fulfil that.
Daniel 9 may well have been given to THE Daniel in 539, although it's interesting that the king is wrong. An easy mistake in the culture of four hundred years later, despite being accurate down to 167 BCE and significantly, again, not to 164.
But let's assume it's dated correctly, it doesn't violate God. But Daniel getting his king wrong is more than suspicious.
Daniel 11-12 - the Kings of the North and South - does. Violate God. There again so would 8 - the Ram and Goat (a great pub) - if it were prophecy, more evidence, not that any is needed, that 9, 11-12 aren't. 10 doesn't prophecy anything.
I want it all to be true, all to be dated from 605 to 539 and written by Daniel.
But there is no warrant for that.
Unless God is Killer.
Or worse.
There is no obvious late date. It is a fiction created by the Bible trashing higher critics which if you believe, you at least need to acknowledge the motive of a naturalistic rather than a supernaturalistic assumption.
By the way, what king was wrong?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Serious question, Jamat.
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
Other than, 'because it says so', what other irrefutable evidence is there for an early date for Isaiah or Daniel?
I've read arguments on both sides and there are strong arguments on both sides - apart from some of the more populist uber-conservative literalists.
How is it any less of an assumption that higher critics have a 'bible trashing' agenda than to assume that some conservatives have an obscurantism or reactionary agenda?
Surely it's better to examine each case in its own merits?
From what I can gather, the original Higher Critics postulated unfeasibly late dates for some scriptural texts, which have now been dated earlier in the light of subsequent scholarship. That hasn't 'proved' the conservatives right, but it does indicate that opinion isn't fixed and that dating of ancient texts is not an exact science.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The late date for Daniel 11-12 is obvious because otherwise, rationally, we live in an eternalist, 4-dimensional, block time, ontologically time-sliced universe, which I don't like. But if we do, that actually doesn't make God a violator of man or us of Him.
If that's what you're saying Jamat, I can live wit that. But if you're saying that God is Killer, nah.
[ 31. January 2018, 18:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
I think because the text itself deals with the supernatural and claims the reality of prophecy and the presence of angelic beings who convey it. In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. If I question Daniel’s experiences, I question not only the supernatural but also his integrity. If he is a liar then the date question is irrelevant.
By seeking ‘irrefutable evidence’, I think you betray naturalistic thinking rather than that of a man of faith because in effect, you are saying you want the sort of evidence that would convince an unbeliever. Thus you place both in the same jury as it were. However, we both know that no one is convinced by any evidence whatsoever if their heart is hard or they are hurt or angry. Evidence will not affect that inner resistance to God’s truth. It must be broken down in other ways. The best way in my experience is to submit oneself to the truth of scripture. It is hard for my pride to do this but is the way to faith. As Romans 10:17 says,”Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
[ 01. February 2018, 08:53: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Your point about 'irrefutable evidence' is well made, but the other points you make are wide of the mark.
Was Dickens a liar because Oliver Twist is a novel. Was Shakespeare a liar because King Richard III never said, 'A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse?' on the battlefield of Bosworth?
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic. Which rather suggests we should read it differently to the way you are doing.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
In what way is your 'supernaturalist assumption' any less of an assumption than a 'naturalistic' one which plumps for an early date?
I think because the text itself deals with the supernatural and claims the reality of prophecy and the presence of angelic beings who convey it. In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. If I question Daniel’s experiences, I question not only the supernatural but also his integrity. If he is a liar then the date question is irrelevant.
By seeking ‘irrefutable evidence’, I think you betray naturalistic thinking rather than that of a man of faith because in effect, you are saying you want the sort of evidence that would convince an unbeliever. Thus you place both in the same jury as it were. However, we both know that no one is convinced by any evidence whatsoever if their heart is hard or they are hurt or angry. Evidence will not affect that inner resistance to God’s truth. It must be broken down in other ways. The best way in my experience is to submit oneself to the truth of scripture. It is hard for my pride to do this but is the way to faith. As Romans 10:17 says,”Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ.”
It seems to me that if you're going to argue that way, then you can turn it round the other ...
Yes, it is hard for our pride to 'submit oneself to the truth of scripture.'
But equally, we can take a perverse pride in asserting that OUR particular take on scripture is THE correct and definitive one.
Or, it can be hard for us to swallow our pride and accept that a different 'take' or angle on scripture may be better than one we currently hold.
It works both ways.
Besides, why does 'submitting oneself to the truth of scripture' necessitate having to interpret apocalyptic or visionary scriptures in a literal sense?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic
Essentially,you are saying it is a work of fiction, by using an absurd illustration.
Not all of Daniel is what you vaguely term apocalyptic. There is quite a bit of narrative history alongside the future themes.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Well, narrative, anyway.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Now, I'm not saying that the Book of Daniel is a work of fiction in the way that those works are, but it is written in a particular genre - that we call apocalyptic
Essentially,you are saying it is a work of fiction, by using an absurd illustration.
Not all of Daniel is what you vaguely term apocalyptic. There is quite a bit of narrative history alongside the future themes.
Well, yes, of course there is, but then there the sections which are clearly more visionary and, to use a term you appear to object to, 'apocalyptic'.
Narrative and apocalyptic can co-exist, in the same way that poetry and prose co-exist in a Shakespeare play.
My analogy with Shakespeare and Dickens is not as 'absurd' as you suggest. Both Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities are set at a particular time and in a particular context. They don't set out to be historically accurate accounts of course, but works of fiction set against that background.
Now, I'm not saying that the author/s (?) of Daniel set out with the same intention and that the whole thing is 'made up'. I am simply suggesting that he is using the literary tools available to him to convey his (their?) message.
That included the apocalyptic.
I'm not suggesting he didn't have actual lucid visions, any more than I am suggesting that the author of Revelation didn't.
Rather, I am saying that this kind of visionary and apocalyptic/prophetic material is embedded within the narrative - in a similar way, perhaps, to how a Shakespearean solioquy is embedded into the action of the play.
Did Henry V take Harfleur? Yes, he did.
Did he pause before the walls to shout, 'Once more into the breach dear friends?'
No, of course not.
FWIW I am quite prepared to accept the Book of Jonah as some kind of midrash/'novel' and possibly Esther in the same kind of way. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that Jonah wasn't a real guy or that the Jews didn't go into exile etc.
With Daniel, it seems to me, that we've got several strands going on and interweaving - narrative and apocalyptic.
That immediately should alert us that it's to be read in a different kind of way.
Equally, it's somewhat anachronistic to 'read back' later literary genres, such as the 18th or 19th century fiction or Renaissance drama, back into the ancient texts. We need to tackle these ancient texts in a different kind of way.
Of course, we all know how the Church came to approach these texts, the three / four principles of considering the literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.
At certain times and places, various of the three / four approaches have tended to dominate.
We need to apply them all.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
Ah, but it's scripture and therefore inspired by God, so if it tells us that Daniel had a vision or that a particular book was written by Isaiah son of Amoz, we have no option but to take that at face value.
That's how the argument runs.
Which then gets us into all sorts of acrobatics, such as why the Hebrew version of Daniel which doesn't contain the story of Bel and the Dragon is inspired but the Greek version, which does contain that story, isn't ...
So, if God inspired it then, according to Jamat, it has to contain no errors or contradictions nor anything 'fictitious' - unless its a parable or something similar.
So there really was a conversation between God and the Devil over Job because the Book of Job records there being one.
So Jonah must have literally sung his hymn from within the belly of the great fish, because the Book of Jonah gives us the lyrics ...
And so on ...
There'd be internal proof-texts cited to support this case, but, unsurprisingly enough, a reluctance to cite any separate or independent motives such as:
- Because the Church accepts it as such.
- Tradition or small t tradition accepts it as such.
- That chap over there says so.
Or whatever else might constitute 'separate or independent' motives.
Mind you, I'm not sure what 'separate and independent' sources or motives there might be - all these things are interdependent and interconnected.
It's a both/and thing, not an either/or ... 'the Church through the Bible and the Bible through the Church.'
The classic conservative response would be that God himself has attested to it, so there is no need for any further discussion.
Which is, of course, a circular argument.
Which is fine, as long as we recognise it as such and don't pretend it's anything other than that.
Jamat is right in reminding us that it boils down to a faith position and that no amount of 'evidence' is going to settle some of these matters one way or t'other.
I'm with him on that one, but coming at things from a somewhat different direction when assessing how these things work out, as it were and how we approach these texts.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
... In assuming its truth, I assume only what it claims for itself. ...
There are rather a lot of texts that claim truth for themselves. So there has to be some separate and independent motive for accepting the claims of a particular text.
But this is not just any text. This is scripture. This text is in a class of its own because over many years it has been ascribed the authority of a divine seal by Jews and believers in Christ. In the context of this exchange, the question was about ‘irrefutable evidence’. I guess you could say that this biblical text puts historical events alongside supernatural dreams and angelic visits. Eg ‘in the first year of X etc’. It is that something objective is claimed alongside something supernatural.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Which by no means unique to scripture, of course. Ancient epic poetry does the same.
The sacred texts of other religions do the same.
Of course there isn't incontrovertible evidence or 'irrefutable' proof, and yes, as a Christian I'm going to put more weight on scripture than I am on The Iliad or the Hindu scriptures etc.
But these writings are theological writings, they aren't meant to be newspaper reports. They aren't 'objective' any more than any other writing is 'objective'.
That doesn't mean it isn't true, it simply means that it isn't necessarily dealing with objective facts in a laboratory sense.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
That doesn't mean it isn't true, it simply means that it isn't necessarily dealing with objective facts in a laboratory sense.
And that is your issue..that anyone need insist that the things related are objectively true. Perhaps you need to specify what other kind of ‘true’ there is. Essentially, what people understand as true is objective truth. There is no other kind and God’s revelation was not to theologians, but to humanity in general.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, but humanity in general thinks theologically. Human beings are religious.
All cultures and societies have developed belief systems.
That doesn't mean I don't believe that the revelation of Christ isn't unique nor that the Hebrew/Christian scriptures are simply on a par with any other religious text.
None of the writers of scripture are writing something that is non-theological. It is a book that conveys a body of belief. It isn't the Yellow Pages or a computer manual.
At times I get the impression that you treat the scriptures like a set of assembly instructions for a piece of flat-pack furniture.
What I'm saying is that there are theologically truths that are different to literal or narrative truths.
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job?
No, of course not. The Book of Job is using a literary-theological device.
Did Job's Comforters have a dialogue with him using the Hebrew equivalent of iambic pentameter?
Do John's visions in Revelation mean that heaven has actual streets of gold or that one day we'll all be attacked by anthropoid scorpion-like creatures?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
NOTHING can influence Jamat's elephant but experience. And that 99.99% excludes us and anything we say. We just gots to find a way to love his rogue elephant for the sake of the mahout being dragged around on top.
As an Alzheimer's sufferer said to his wife, 'Help the elephant!'.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job
No but what is the right question?
Is it.. ‘was there an encounter between God and Satan over the status of God’s servant Job?’
If not, then why is one asserted?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've answered that already,because it is a literary-theological work which deploys the plot device of a somewhat 'realised' encounter between God and Satan in order to introduce and explore the issues that the Book of Job so profoundly and poetically examines.
That works equally well if it is an account of a literal event or whether it's a stylised one. In fact, the issue of whether it really took place is a secondary one and the status of scripture as the inspired word of God doesn't stand or fall by it one iota.
Was Job a real person who had all sorts of misfortune? Yes, I believe heay well have been.
Even if he wasn't and it's a form of parable or extended midrashic fable, it doesn't detract from the power or theological veracity of the story, nor the status of scripture in the way it would if someone were to dig up Christ's bones in Jerusalem tomorrow.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
somewhat 'realised' encounter between God and Satan
So what is that code for?..somewhat realised?
..I know, pick me! ..it came out of some bronze aged scribe’s imagination!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Where else would it have come from? Did God dictate it to a Bronze Age scribe?
If the writer of Job chose to address issues of theodicy and the cosmic dimension of God's providence and human responses to it by using this particular trope how does this make the Bible any the less inspired or the story any the less true?
We can't even begin to talk about these kind of issues without resorting to symbol, metaphor and 'picture language'.
Besides, the encounter between God and Satan in Job raises all sorts of issues if understood as if it is a page out of Hansard.
By approaching it as a story, a midrash, a theological narrative, in no way diminishes the reality of God, of Satan or our understanding of the world around us.
You are requiring it to conform to particular ideas of how you think scripture ought to 'work'.
Have you read any Jewish midrashes? They personify God in often shockingly anthropomorphic terms. They didn't take them literally, at least not in the way they describe God, but as teaching and debating tools.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Jamat, does your theology / view of inspiration have any room for the use of the imagination?
Wasn't Jesus using his imagination when he told Parables?
I don't understand why you feel the need to denigrate the possible role of the imagination in a work like Job or Jonah.
You seem to suggest that if it is anyway 'imaginative' then somehow it isn't true.
Why is that? Why posit such a dichotomy?
What purpose does it serve?
It neither defends or reinforces the inspiration or integrity of scripture. If anything it demeans it in favour of s wooden reductionism.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
You seem to suggest that if it is anyway 'imaginative' then somehow it isn't true
Not sure what you mean by imaginative here.
Do you mean like a kid imagines things or cultural fictions like the tooth fairy or using the mind to create possibilities?
If any of these, how would one bring it to bear on the scenario of Job ch1?
Jesus referred more than once to Jonah’s experience and used that to teach his death and resurrection. Jonah was ‘midrash’ in that instance but Jonah’s experience was seen by him as literally real as well...’as Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the fish..’
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, let's let look at it another way ...
Just suppose we both had bacon and eggs for breakfast tomorrow morning. We might say 'grace' or give God thanks for it as the ultimate source of the food on our table.
But to get from God onto our table and into our stomachs, it's gone through a lengthy and complicated process. Agriculture, husbandry, abattoirs, processing, packaging, marketing, retsil, logistics ...
Is it God or the farmer we should thank?
God or the truck driver, the greengrocer, the ...
So, by analogy, that Bible you might read tomorrow morning or hear preached from?
How does that get to us?
By a lengthy and complex process. Part of that might just conceivably involve someone composing and editing, using their imagination, engaging their faculties, using narrative skills ...
How does any of that leave God out of the equation?
Of course Job is an imaginative book. It's narrative poetry for much of its length. There are stylised conversations and dialogue. That's how it works.
It works by engaging the human imagination. It's not CCTV footage of a meeting between God and the Devil one afternoon ...
The exchange between God and Satan, the exchanges between Job and his Comforters and ultimately between God and Job are stylised ones, literary devices.
That doesn't mean Job didn't exist or that terrible things befell him from which he was eventually 'restored' ...
But even if he didn't exist, even if he were a fictitious character (which I think is unlikely but this is for sake of argument), then how does that detract from the theological points the author makes?
FWIW, I do think that Job was probably a real character - or a set of archetypal characters - but whatever undeying report or historical context there might be, it's the theological and literary aspects that are most important.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If I said, 'King Arthur drew the sword out of the Stone ...' does that mean I take the Arthurian legends literally?
We don't know how literally Jesus took the story of Jonah. Your proof-text doesn't prove anything one way or another.
We can't prove he took it literally and can't prove he didn't. Either way it's the analogy he is drawing and applying to his own death and resurrection that is the important point.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Bu why do the theological and literacy elements contradict the reality of events depicted? Job is about patience in adversity. Why must Job be fictional? The lesson is more forceful if Job’s adversities happened to a real man.
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
You continually say as much but never support it. If Job or Jonah are mere fictional cautionary tales, why should they be accorded authority above the poems of Hilliare Belloc?
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
It's a long time since I studied Daniel, but isn't it the case that his prophecies are amazingly accurate and precise up to a certain point, and then become very woolly and general? If it was all predicting the future that is hard to explain; if the author was writing about past events and then switched to speculating about the future it's much easier to understand.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Job's adversities may have been real. I'm open to the possibility - or rather, the probability, that he was a real historical figure, one that become an emblematic by-word for patient endurance in the face of suffering.
But the point of the story doesn't depend on him being an historical character.
As for the poetry of Hilaire Belloc, nobody's ever sought to canonise them have they?
I can't remember a Vatican Council, an Orthodox Ecumenical Council or a synod of any Protestant denomination ever debating whether Belloc's poems should be included retrospectively in their canon of holy writ ...
The ancients didn't make the same kind of distinctions between fiction and non-fiction, poetry and prose etc as we do.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed, and it is telling, perhaps, that Jamat appears to portray the imagination in such a dismissive way. It's something kids use or it creates trite cultural fictions such as the tooth fairy ...
He doesn't cite it in connection with a Homer or a Milton, a Shakespeare or a Coleridge, a Leonardo or a Tolstoy,a Beethoven, Bach or Mozart ...
Ok, I tend to be wary of the use of the imagination in an Ignatian sense or in the Romantic sense when applied to spirituality, but I don't see why we have to insist on modern notions of historical accuracy when dealing with books like Job or Jonah.
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
Well, exactly. One of the things that always strikes me about the parable of the Good Samaritan is how Jesus knocks the lawyer's worldview completely out of whack by making up a story. The lawyer could easily have countered with, "but that couldn't happen, you just made that up!" - but he doesn't; he can't. It's as if the story has its own power and authority, is true in a way that goes beyond its histrocity*, and in a way that he can't avoid, even though he's been listening essentially to a work of fiction.
Now, I personally wouldn't want to push that too far: I do believe, for example, the resurrection of Jesus actually happened (though I'm less and less keen on those books that try to prove it). But I think we underestimate the very real power of story, even invented story, to bring home truth.
--
*I'm aware that there are some who have argued that Jesus was recounting a real event in this parable. I don't buy that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure. I attended a fascinating day/evening recently where an Anglican theologian explored the use of art in exploring meaty theological issues.
He gave due weight to the classic Creedal doctrines but suggested that whilst there was certainly scope for systematic theology, doctrinal debate etc etc, it would also help if we approached these things as we approach art and music (of whatever kind).
It wasn't that he was 'dismissing' it all as metaphor - which is what Jamat seems to think we are in danger of doing, but neither was it a bald, proof-texting approach - and there were plenty of scriptural references in his presentations.
He struck plenty of chords with me.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My issue with your view, really, is that you assert that stories in scripture that are narratives of characters can be seen as just as authoritative if those stories were fictional.
Why is that a problem? Are the parables of Jesus any less authoritative by virtue of being stories rather than events that actually happened?
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, but neither are they historical narratives in the modern sense.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
I didn't say they were. I rhetorically noted that the parables are authoritative despite not being accounts of events that actually happened. The non-rhetorical question is: Why would the authoritative nature of the stories of Job or Jonah be undermined if those stories are not accounts of events that actually happened?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Did the Devil literally walk into God's office one afternoon to file an accusation against him over his servant Job
No but what is the right question?
Is it.. ‘was there an encounter between God and Satan over the status of God’s servant Job?’
If not, then why is one asserted?
A literary device to set the scene for the morality play which ensues? I'm always amazed people take it to be a story about a real person; for one thing, God comes across pretty badly in the scenes with Satan.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Parables are not narrative stories and not what I was talking about. They are illustrative fictional cautionary tales. Not denying their place or function but neither Jonah nor Job narratives are parables.
I didn't say they were. I rhetorically noted that the parables are authoritative despite not being accounts of events that actually happened. The non-rhetorical question is: Why would the authoritative nature of the stories of Job or Jonah be undermined if those stories are not accounts of events that actually happened?
And I did not say you said they were.
It is a red herring to mention them.
Gamaliel: If they are not intended as narratives that happened, then what are they intended as?
You see there are only 2 possibilities really; they are either true narrative stories or fictional accounts that purport to be true and therefore fraudulent and deserving of no authoritative status.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, this is where you keep going wrong in my view. You reduce things down to two bald possibilities:
- It's either an objective representation of the facts.
Or
- It must be fictitious and therefore fraudulent.
You wouldn't say that Paradise Lost was 'fraudulent' because Milton made it up, would you? No, you accept it as an epic poem on its own terms.
Why assume that Job is a 'factual' narrative? What grounds do we have for doing so?
Why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity?
I'm fully prepared to accept that Job existed and that terrible things happened to him, that he became a byword for patient endurance and that his story presented an early scribe / midrashist with material to develop into an imaginative work that raises issues of suffering and theodicy.
It's largely written in verse for a start, which should tell us something about the author's intentions.
You are applying notions of how you think scripture should work onto the text in order to make it fit your particular inerrantist schema.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
And
If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What about Jonah?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And I did not say you said they were.
It is a red herring to mention [the parables].
No, it’s not. It’s an acknowledgement that divine revelation occurs in a variety of writings: narrative of history, stories told to illustrate a point, poetry, and others. If Jesus can use stories to tell us about who God is, who we are and who we are called to be, then why can’t the Holy Spirit?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of somethg that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves.
quote:
If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Because it contains divine revelation, as recognized by the community of faith—the covenant people—over the years.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Exactly, Nick.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Jamat having gone silent on the Dead Horse thread on inspiration I wandered over here; I almost wish I hadn't*.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
why can't it be a work of imagination based around an example - real or imagined or a bit of both - of someone who displayed fortitude in the face of adversity
And what evidence do you offer for insisting on this possibility?
The evidence I would offer, again, is that insisting it is literally true in all respects is that it creates problems that far, far outweigh those aspects this view claims to uphold.
Insisting on it does not enhance the integrity or depth of Scripture, it distorts it beyond all recognition, and it raises theological difficulties that appear to me to be insuperable, notably the assumption that God must have dictated Scripture as objective reportage to its human authors, with all the DH problems that implies.
There is simply no benefit in insisting thus.
==
*It was worth it for this, though:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie, emphasis mine:
I do believe, for example, the resurrection of Jesus actually happened (though I'm less and less keen on those books that try to prove it). But I think we underestimate the very real power of story, even invented story, to bring home truth.
So true. As B62 says on the quiescent DH thread; quote:
I don't believe the polemicists. I believe the witnesses.
[ 05. February 2018, 13:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That too.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
If Jesus can use stories to tell us about who God is, who we are and who we are called to be, then why can’t the Holy Spirit?
No reason at all. However, how would you know that was the intention? Jonah and Job stories are not parables but present as factual narrative accounts.
quote:
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of somethg that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Eutychus :The evidence I would offer, again, is that insisting it is literally true in all respects is that it creates problems that far, far outweigh those aspects this view claims to uphold.
Insisting on it does not enhance the integrity or depth of Scripture, it distorts it beyond all recognition, and it raises theological difficulties that appear to me to be insuperable, notably the assumption that God must have dictated Scripture as objective reportage to its human authors, with all the DH problems that implies.
There is simply no benefit in insisting thus
How wise and erudite this sounds and how empty it actually is.
These insuperable difficulties..what are they?
These distortions. What are they?
In what way does it imply God literally dictated scripture? No one thinks this. It is a straw man.
The DH problems are also unspecified.
ISTM that most objections to scriptural integrity in this wee puddle are not to do with consistency. Rather they are about the justice of God..his character. Is this also true here?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Jamac: If what you say is true why should The said fictional story be accounted the status of scripture rather than seen as fraudulent?
Nick Tamen : Because it contains divine revelation, as recognized by the community of faith—the covenant people—over the years
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it. This is simply because there is no way of defining who, in the hydra of church history, that community actually is. While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process. The OT was never AFAIK the issue there but was and is to this day endorsed by Jewish sources.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
These insuperable difficulties..what are they?
Well for starters, the fact that they lead you to believe that any alternative interpretations to yours are ipso facto wrong. I'd say exclusivism is a pretty big difficulty. And to stick with Job, you have the problem of just who recorded the conversation between God and Satan.
quote:
These distortions. What are they?
I think we need look no further than your desperate attempts (which you finally admitted were misguided) to get 'almâ to mean virgin, but if we must then we could look back at your categories almost beyond number of the redeemed of the Lamb, inside the city, outside the city, occasionally visiting, etc.
quote:
In what way does it imply God literally dictated scripture?
See on Job. What is your view on how the exchanges between God and Satan have come down to us?
quote:
The DH problems are also unspecified.
That's because you've stopped answering down in DH.
quote:
ISTM that most objections to scriptural integrity in this wee puddle are not to do with consistency. Rather they are about the justice of God..his character. Is this also true here?
In what way do you think anyone here has challenged the justice of God?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken
Are you seriously suggesting that a real-life setting for events in literature requires that the events themselves must be true? quote:
He had a fairly realistic sounding wife.
Do I detect your second gratuitous mysogynistic swipe in less than a week?
quote:
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
What? Nobody here is suggesting that and I would have thought you knew in any case that proving a negative is virtually impossible.
Once again this statement of yours suggests that if all of Scripture is not found to be, and defended as being, absolutely literally true (except where it explicitly states otherwise), its credibility is somehow damaged. Whereas most of us seem to take the view that trying to make it true in ways it's not claiming to be is damaging its credibility far more.
[ 05. February 2018, 18:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
History suggests more of a symbiosis than a sequential relationship as the history of the canon demonstrates.
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not?
Do they? Such as?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
You’re the one who has asserted that there are only two possibilities—a narrative of something that actually happened or a fraudulent writing. On what basis do you make that assertion? It seems to that requires imposing a claim on Job and Jonah—that they are telling a story that really happened—that the writers of those books do not make themselves
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
Let's look at the parable of the good Samaritan. Now Samaria was a real place, and a priest and a Levite were real people. So the 3 identified main characters are presented with these connections with reality. The valley is a real place as are Jerusalem and Jericho. and indeed Jesus starts his narration by saying:
In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers.
Note that it says that Jesus goes straight into saying that the man was going. Not started by His saying "let me tell you a story" or some such.
Now this has never been read as a real event being described, but always as an example invented by Jesus to make his point, to give His lesson. How is that any different to the opening of either Job or Jonah?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
To add quickly - the fact that Jesus was not describing a real event does not detract one little bit from His message. Similarly, the messages of Job and Jonah depend not a whit upon the events of their narratives having actually occurred.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat, emphasis mine:
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Wait, I think this might be even worse than I thought it was. You seem to be saying that if it were demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that, say, Niniveh never existed, then that would call into question the credibility of Scripture, so... we should simply ignore any such hypothetical discovery just so it doesn't impact the credibility of Scripture?
That rather than question whether we've been understanding Scripture properly in the light of fresh evidence we should just double down and triple down no matter how flat-earth-society convoluted our explanations become?
If so, there's an editorial opening for you at the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy: quote:
“The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an indispensable companion to all those who are keen to make sense of life in an infinitely complex and confusing Universe, for though it cannot hope to be useful or informative on all matters, it does at least make the reassuring claim, that where it is inaccurate it is at least definitively inaccurate. In cases of major discrepancy it's always reality that's got it wrong.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
To add quickly - the fact that Jesus was not describing a real event does not detract one little bit from His message. Similarly, the messages of Job and Jonah depend not a whit upon the events of their narratives having actually occurred.
I think Jonah is more powerful because it was made up. The author was trying to counteract the arrogant ‘chosen ones’ mentality of his/her fellow Israelites, so chose the most unrepentant wicked people as the villains of the story, with the expected Jewish hero. Only then, it’s turned on its head, and the protagonist becomes the villain, and the damn Ninehvites repent at the drop of a hat.
It’s powerful because the listeners’/readers’ first response would be “no way would that happen!”. It’s supposed to be far-fetched and unbelievable. That’s the whole point. It’s an attitude-challenging story, like the Good Samaritan. “Samaritans don’t act like that! Ninehvites don’t act like that! We should be the heroes! Jews are the goodies!”. It ends on a cliffhanger because it’s good storytelling, not history. It leaves the audience with a question and a challenge.
If it was just history, the challenge is accidental, rather than intentional.
And as for Job. Of course it’s fiction. It begins with an operatic heavenly realm opening, and the whole thing’s a poem, for goodness sake. Even if there’s some basis in a real person’s life, the words the characters speak cannot be historical, unless they were a strange group of friends who spoke in solely in poetry.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
On the basis of the texts themselves and the way they present in terms of background, setting and character. Jonah occurs in Nineveh, a real place so why is the belly of the fish a less real place? Job was from the land of Uz. This is the ancient name for Jordan I think though I may be mistaken. He had a fairly realistic sounding wife. His friends are identified by location.
There is no indications of who the authors are but they purport to retell factual accounts.
Say,for instance,some scholar could show that there never was a place called Nineveh or a land of Uz then that would discredit the narrative as fact and would that not also discredit it as scripture?
Finally, parables are completely different in that we are clearly told when something is a parable. Parables do not use names of real people normally and proclaim themselves as such. They are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons. If you cannot acknowledge that then nothing I can say will help and I am sorry about that.
I'm sorry, Jamat, but this is simply an empty argument, for reasons that Eutychus and Gee D point out. The suggestion that it must be a narrative of historical event because real places are identified and the people involved have names seems to me to border on absurd, I'm afraid. How is that possibly an indication of historical accuracy?
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
Sorry again, but I think that needs an emphatic No! The church, which existed before any of the NT was written, is built on and emerges from Christ, to whom Scripture witnesses.
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
And how did God inform the Hebrews or the church which writings were selected? Could it possibly have been through the activity of the Spirit assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation.
quote:
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it.
Nor did I.
quote:
While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process.
And again, I ask, how did God guide the selection process? By moving in the church to enable the church to see which writings could be accepted as divine revelation and which could not.
And yes, there was debate about the OT as well.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
I ask, how did God guide the selection process
You better ask him that.
Regarding the riposte, ‘for reasons others point out’
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
Everyone demands I answer their issues but I am not the naysayer here. No one is able to answer my assertion as to why, say, Jonah, just for instance,should not be a real true story ..it just took a miracle after all and believers are supposed to deal in those.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
But Job and Jonah don’t purport to be such, and the argument you have mustered to support your assertion that they do isn’t convincing in the least, the dismissiveness of any position you don’t agree with notwithstanding.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
That is mere cant for the simple fact is that much sniping has occurred but no cogent evidence is presented by anyone against the assumption of the factual, narrative truth of Biblical stories that purport to be such.
But Job and Jonah don’t purport to be such, and the argument you have mustered to support your assertion that they do isn’t convincing in the least, the dismissiveness of any position you don’t agree with notwithstanding.
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true. But you assert that they are not..right?
OK,perhaps you can tell me what they do purported to be?
They are certainly not parables are they? If they are fictional narratives why is it that Jonah presents as a Hebrew, the son of Amittai, a worshipper of the God most high who made the earth and the sea.
Jonah is also referenced in 2kings14:25 as well as multiple times by Jesus notably in Matt12:40. Is 2kings fictional as well? Did the son of God get it wrong?
[ 05. February 2018, 23:39: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
(skipping the first point for another occasion)
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Really, this is an appeal to tradition. It is a roundabout way of begging the question. I say this because the church is built on and emerges from scripture rather than vice versa.
Sorry again, but I think that needs an emphatic No! The church, which existed before any of the NT was written, is built on and emerges from Christ, to whom Scripture witnesses.
This is of course the classic RCC argument and by the 1400s that had, I submit, led to a right mess! Plus that basic idea would also be true of the "OT Church" Israel. But in that case once there was agreed Scripture, a Word recognised as God's Word, tradition had to take second place and be governed by Scripture rather than the other way round, as Jesus said in Mark 7, particularly in the classic example of how the Pharisees had used 'tradition' to nullify the Word of God about the 'Corban' custom. That is Jesus' own example of the relationship between 'church' and Scripture.
The NT effectively comes from/through the apostolic witness to Jesus - and the later Church has no authority to contradict that. Sure it has authority to go beyond Scripture to meet new situations - but it needs to do that in line with Scripture and constantly testing its ideas against Scripture.
quote:
quote:
All the justifications for tradition, rightly or wrongly come ultimately from scripture do they not? My own belief is that God oversaw and selected the writings we count to be scripture and tradition should be judged against it.
And how did God inform the Hebrews or the church which writings were selected? Could it possibly have been through the activity of the Spirit assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?
Yes of course it is through the Spirit "assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?" But that's not the same thing at all as giving the Church the right to simply contradict Scripture. That would be somewhat like a suggestion that a person who discovered and authenticated a Shakespeare text would also be the only person entitled to infallibly interpret it.
And yes, the Church is in fact given interpretative authority; but the authority is given to the Church in the sense of 'ekklesia', the assembly of believers, rather than just to what might be called 'institutional bosses'. And there's a further point there, to which nobody's yet given me a satisfactory answer - once under Theodosius the actual definition of 'The Church' had been changed, from "the born again by faith called out of the surrounding society" to instead the "born again by infant baptism and essentially the whole of a society of nominal believers", how can that very different organisation truly carry the authority given to the original Church??
quote:
quote:
You cannot say a writing is divine because the divine community (whoever they are) uphold it.
Nor did I.
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it; it would actually technically still be divine even if the 'divine community' rejected it. Yes in fact the Spirit did guide the Church what to accept, but the Church must not give itself airs of being over rather than under the Scripture which it has recognised.
quote:
quote:
While the canon of the NT was hammered out at Nicea, this suggests only that God guided the selection process.
And again, I ask, how did God guide the selection process? By moving in the church to enable the church to see which writings could be accepted as divine revelation and which could not.
And yes, there was debate about the OT as well. [/QB]
[/QUOTE]
Although the NT was finalised at Nicea I think it fair comment that much of the decision actually goes back rather to the time when Marcion challenged the then 'canon' and wanted to cut huge chunks from it to suit his prejudices. But again it is rather the point that the Church making that decision was recognising the divinity of the Scripture rather than creating that divinity, and that it was also recognising an authority over itself.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
How is that any different to the opening of either Job or Jonah
It is no different. In Luke 10, Jesus does not say it was not a true story so it could have been either a parable or an anecdotal true illustration that he knew about. I’m inclined to think it was the latter though it certainly serves the purpose of a parable. The parables of the kingdom in Matthew are a bit differently referenced from some of the stories in Luke, eg in Luke 16 ..the rich man and the beggar. The ones in Matthew 13 state that the purpose of Jesus is to actually hide spiritual truth.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true. But you assert that they are not..right?
Nope. I assert that whether they are historical narratives or not is irrelevant to the revelation they contain.
quote:
perhaps you can tell me what they do purported to be?
They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying.
quote:
If they are fictional narratives why is it that Jonah presents as a Hebrew, the son of Amittai, a worshipper of the God most high who made the earth and the sea.
How does that possibly establish anything one way or the other? A story that isn’t historically accurate can’t have characters with names, nationalities and fathers who worship God?
By the way, "fiction" is your term. I’d say calling it "fiction" is anachronistic, applying a modern "fiction/non-fiction" distinction to an ancient writing from a time when people thought in different terms. They’re stories.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Yes of course it is through the Spirit "assisting the Hebrews and the church in recognizing them as containing divine revelation?" But that's not the same thing at all as giving the Church the right to simply contradict Scripture.
Who said anything about the church having the right to contradict Scripture? Not me.
quote:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it; it would actually technically still be divine even if the 'divine community' rejected it. Yes in fact the Spirit did guide the Church what to accept, but the Church must not give itself airs of being over rather than under the Scripture which it has recognised.
Who said anything about it being okay for the church to give itself airs of being over Scripture? Not me.
quote:
But again it is rather the point that the Church making that decision was recognising the divinity of the Scripture rather than creating that divinity, and that it was also recognising an authority over itself.
Which is exactly the point I was making, at least the first part is.
As to the second part, I was disagreeing with Jamat's statement that the church is "built on" and "emerges from" Scripture. That's a different statement from recognizing the authority of Scripture. I made no comment at all in the quoted post on the authority of Scripture, though I have regularly in this thread referred to Scripture as "authoritative."
Seriously Steve, your lecture seems to have little to do with what I said and a lot more to do with your own hobby horses.
[ 06. February 2018, 01:09: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Jamat: perhaps you can tell me what they do purport to be?
Nick Tamen: They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
A story that is just a story has no more authority than a fairy tale or a nursery rhyme. The truth of the story is not irrelevant to what a writer is saying, it IS what the writer is saying. Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device, then it must stand or fall on its truth value.
[ 06. February 2018, 02:11: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Jamat, I simply do not know what else to say. I think you significantly underestimate the power of story and story-telling. The idea that a story cannot have meaning or authority unless it is factually true, or that God cannot speak through it unless it actually happened, is just foreign to me and seems flatly contrary to Scripture and the culture in which Scripture took shape.
But at least please stop mischaracterizing the positions of others. I have not “written off” anything as “fiction.” As I told you, “fiction” is your word, not one I would use of one that I think fits. And I have not “written off” any of Scripture, nor, I think, has anyone else here.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
that a story cannot have meaning or authority unless it is factually true, or that God cannot speak through it unless it actually happened, is just foreign to me and seems flatly contrary to Scripture and the culture in which Scripture took shape
And I have not denied any of those things. Stories are powerful etc and have their place. I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It is not I who am asserting anything. I just believe that the stories are true.
No you don't. As I've said before, you're quite entitled to your convictions. What you do beyond asserting them is consistently refer to others' objections you can't answer along the lines of quote:
That is mere cant (...) much sniping has occurred (...)
and so on. Every time you find an objection too difficult to deal with, you either ignore it outright or trash it in terms as you have done above.
Goperryrevs has given what I see as a fascinating insight into Jonah above, so much so that I'm strongly tempted to make Jonah the subject of my next preaching series. It takes me much further in my walk with God than speculating on how exactly Jonah could have been swallowed by a fish (in this respect see this great piece of documentary research).
To throw out insights such as Goperryrevs' as "cant" or other insults for want of any actual argument is to miss so much truth.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Jamat: perhaps you can tell me what they do purport to be?
Nick Tamen: They purport to be stories. Nowhere does the writer say, directly or indirectly, that they are stories of things that actually happened, and nowhere does the writer say they are not—because whether they are or not is irrelevant to what the writer is saying
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
So far, you've not dealt with the lack of any historical basis for the events of Luke 10 30-35. Nowhere does Jesus say that this is a story he's telling to make clear his message. In fact, as I've pointed out, the start of the parable is that Jesus says that a man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho. No suggestion in that that this is an invented story. Much the same can be said for other parables.
You then go on to say:
quote:
If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
You and others are trying to suggest that none of this matters. But I think that if we can write Job off as fictional then we can also write his suffering off as fictional and whatever we choose to take out of it, we can also choose to reject what we do not like.
The truth of the story does not affect its standing as scripture. What is important is the truth of the message set out.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Eutychus: No you don't. As I've said before, you're quite entitled to your convictions. What you do beyond asserting them is consistently refer to others' objections you can't answer along the lines of
No YOU don’t.
This is totally upside down. It is not up to me to solve anyone’s issues with scripture that I do not share. No one has any substantial reasons for doubting the veracity of scripture or I am sure they would have put them out there by now. It is all a case of needing to adjust what is written to the various theological non negotiables.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
No YOU don’t.
It is patently obvious that you don't "just" hold to your version of what Scriptural truth is. Over and above holding it, you insist in dissing everybody else's without any supporting arguments. My words in response to your assertions may not be tender but they are not devoid of argued support.
quote:
It is not up to me to solve anyone’s issues with scripture that I do not share.
No it's not, but it would be decent of you either to state your objections (rather than just fling invective) and respect others' opinions as professed believers rather than assert they are all part of an agenda to undermine the credibility of Scripture.
quote:
No one has any substantial reasons for doubting the veracity of scripture or I am sure they would have put them out there by now.
Agreed. I don't think anybody here doubts the veracity of Scripture.
What we differ on is whether its veracity relies on it being literally and historically true at all points where it is not explicitly stated to be otherwise. quote:
It is all a case of needing to adjust what is written to the various theological non negotiables.
And what theological non negotiables might these be?
Earlier on you said something similar about it all being to do with people's ideas of God's character and justice and I asked you what you might mean by that, but like so much else on this thread the question has gone unanswered.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Jamat, I don't have an issue with Job or Jonah being historical characters. Henry V was an historical character. Does that mean that Shakespeare's play of that name is historically accurate in the modern sense?
You can't answer any of these issues without falling back on some 19th century view of scripture which collapses as soon as some blows on it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Not just Anderson in the 19th century. One of Cromwell's Puritans interpreted the pouring out of the 4th as a foreshadowing of the forthcoming publication of one of his works! Such modesty.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]If they did not happen, why tell them? What authority do they have? Why are they revered as scripture? How can we properly or realistically or morally identify with characters whose behaviour is fictional?
I’d just given an answer to that before you even asked the question. But, as others have said, unless you’re willing to apply the same standard to Jesus’ parables, your questions are kind of empty.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]A story that is just a story has no more authority than a fairy tale or a nursery rhyme. The truth of the story is not irrelevant to what a writer is saying, it IS what the writer is saying. Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device, then it must stand or fall on its truth value.
Again, as others have said, Jesus doesn’t specifically mark out the Good Samaritan as a parable. So... Do you think it was a parable, or was it a real historical event? Careful, because however you answer, you’ll either end up calling your own criticisms in yourself, or making the same argument that has been made against you.
Besides, there are clear signals that, for example, Job is fiction. It’s written in poetry. And the opening is a clue. But, let’s stick with the poetry thing. How historical does something have to be to be historical? Do you believe that a) the historical characters actually spoke in poetry, or b) the poetry is a rough estimate of their actual opinions and interactions. Unless you really think A, which would be pretty funny, then you’d agree that a certain amount of poetic license in the inspired writing is valid...
...which means that the question is not the binary one you’ve made out (fact or fiction), but that there is a fuzzy line that must be drawn somewhere between the two with regards to whether something actually ‘happened’. Look at most Hollywood representations of “true stories”: multiple characters get merged, sub-plots get tweaked and changed. That’s part of story-telling. Things are not as black and white as you make out.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed, and for someone who used to teach literature, Jamat appears to have a very 'low' view of his own discipline.
Can we not gain moral lessons from War & Peace, say, or Great Expectations because they are novels, or The Tempest or Ki g Lear or The Crucible because they are plays?
Where do we get this idea that everything has to be literally true in a documentary sense in order for it to qualify as scripture? Not from scripture itself.
Yes, I'm sure Jesus and his contemporaries - Jesus in a kenotic sense - took the Creation story and other OT stories more literally than we might but that doesn't mean they were 'wrong' or the writers 'fraudulent'. What a bizarre way to look at things.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
One more point, sorry for the barrage of posts.
Jamat, you said, “Unless something is clearly signalled as a figure of speech or literacy device...”
My questions would be, “how”, and “to whom”.
It’s my understanding that the Jewish response to Nineveh’s repentance in Jonah would have been, “Bwa ha ha ha! Nineveh? Repent? Haw haw haw!”
So to the original audience, that plot device alone would have CLEARLY SIGNALLED that the story is a literary device to get them to think about their attitudes. Because Nineveh repenting is so obviously not history; they lived in that time. They knew Nineveh.
But here we are, so many centuries later, and our cultural ignorance means that the story doesn’t hit us in the same way that it hit the original audience.
And what’s a ‘clear signal’ to one person is evidentially not so clear to another. To me, it’s farcical to see the two Genesis creation myths as anything but parables - from clear signals in the text (let alone science). However, there are plenty of Christians that see otherwise. So I have to accept that what is abundantly clear to me might not be so clear to others. That’s usefully humbling.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Yes, I've been thinking this for some time now.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Not actually disagreeing with you, I think. But coming at things from a different angle to oppose a different problem.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The writing is in fact divine because God, via the apostles, prophets, etc., wrote it;
That doesn’t sound like a Christian view of inspiration to me; more like a Muslim one. Allah dictated the Qu’ran to the prophet Muhammed - I.e. wrote it. Christians do not see the Bible in the same way. We don’t believe that God wrote it, but that (s)he inspired the people that wrote it through the Holy Spirit. That’s different.
Not actually disagreeing with you, I think. But coming at things from a different angle to oppose a different problem.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In which case, why assert that God 'wrote' it?
God didn't 'write' the scriptures. People did.
Inspiration doesn't mean that he dictated it in some way. I know you understand that but your posts can sometimes suggest otherwise.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
hink Jonah is more powerful because it was made up. The author was trying to counteract the arrogant ‘chosen ones’ mentality of his/her fellow Israelites, so chose the most unrepentant wicked people as the villains of the story, with the expected Jewish hero. Only then, it’s turned on its head, and the protagonist becomes the villain, and the damn Ninehvites repent at the drop of a hat.
It’s powerful because the listeners’/readers’ first response would be “no way would that happen!”. It’s supposed to be far-fetched and unbelievable. That’s the whole point. It’s an attitude-challenging story, like the Good Samaritan. “Samaritans don’t act like that! Ninehvites don’t act like that! We should be the heroes! Jews are the goodies!”. It ends on a cliffhanger because it’s good storytelling, not history. It leaves the audience with a question and a challenge.
If it was just history, the challenge is accidental, rather than intentional.
And as for Job. Of course it’s fiction. It begins with an operatic heavenly realm opening, and the whole thing’s a poem, for goodness sake. Even if there’s some basis in a real person’s life, the words the characters speak cannot be historical, unless they were a strange group of friends who spoke in solely in poetry
So boiled down:
Jonah is obviously fiction because it uses reverse psychology so well..oh and by the way the Ninevites did not repent..I know cos I just do.
Job is a poem so obviously it is a dramatic fiction that has all the hallmarks of stagecraft..and everybody should know that poems never reconstruct genuine narratives..right.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Ah, so we're allowed "dramatic reconstruction", are we?
Where do you draw the line between "dramatic reconstruction" and "dramatic licence"?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
oh and by the way the Ninevites did not repent..I know cos I just do.
Hey, I’m sure you can point me to some extra-biblical corroborative evidence that they did! Oh no; you know it’s historical cos you just do.
Actually, the difference between us is that if it turns out that Jonah is historical it won’t damage my worldview one iota. But your whole systematic theology is dependent on its own rigidity.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Job is a poem so obviously it is a dramatic fiction that has all the hallmarks of stagecraft..and everybody should know that poems never reconstruct genuine narratives..right.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t read my later posts, but if you did, thanks Eutychus for restating the question. Where’s the line in dramatising history? No glib dismissals, please - what is acceptable when turning ‘history’ into a poem or another form of literature?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt
That's generous.
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
It is NOT my job to prove the contention.. It is the contender's.
I just believe the text viz:
There was a Jonah, there was a Job. They were real people and their experiences are depicted as real history.
You say no. I do not think you have made your point.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
You’re avoiding again, Jamat.
We all agree that the text says what it says and that it is Scripture. But the problem is the text doesn’t say one way or another whether it is accurately recording actual events or is a semi-historical or non-historical story. The text just tells the story.
The contention made by others is not that the text non-historical, but rather that the text can easily be read as non-historical, and maybe should be read as non-historical, but that ultimately in doesn’t matter one way or the other in terms of the text’s meaning or authority as Scripture. And others have supported that contention.
You, on the other hand, have contended that the text can only be read as historically accurate and must be so read, or else its authority is called into question.
That’s your contention, and the burden is on you to support your contention.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
You, on the other hand, have contended that the text can only be read as historically accurate and must be so read, or else its authority is called into question.
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
You have done more than merely assert that they are historical, Jamat. Just yesterday, you said:
quote:
I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
So, why "must" Job and Jonah be historical, and why is support for our faith tenuous if they are not?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I merely assert that they are historic; there are obviously all sorts of ways to read them.
You have done more than merely assert that they are historical, Jamat. Just yesterday, you said:
quote:
I think that God’s stories in particular, Daniel, Moses,David,Jonah, Joshua, Samson Jesus the Christ, Paul etc etc are all historical. I think that if they are part of the great meta narrative of the Bible, they must be and if they are not then we are relying on very tenuous support for our faith.
So, why "must" Job and Jonah be historical, and why is support for our faith tenuous if they are not?
Not the point again. exclusive readings?..never said that.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
All I’m asking, Jamat, is for you to support what you've said—to say why you assert what you assert. I'm not sure why that seems so difficult, or why you seem so determined not to do it.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All I’m asking, Jamat, is for you to support what you've said—to say why you assert what you assert. I'm not sure why that seems so difficult, or why you seem so determined not to do it.
What I said was:
There is a real history in those books
If it is denied then the books are fraudulent..masquerading as fact when they are not
Notwithstanding, the above, there are different ways to read them. You could see Job as a study in the cycle of depression, etc.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
There is a real history in those books
Are "those books" real history, or poetic reconstruction of real history, in your view?
[ 07. February 2018, 05:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What I said was:
There is a real history in those books
If it is denied then the books are fraudulent..masquerading as fact when they are not
Notwithstanding, the above, there are different ways to read them. You could see Job as a study in the cycle of depression, etc.
Does either Job or Jonah purport to be fact? I'd say no more than the parable of the Samaritan does.
[ 07. February 2018, 06:16: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Wait, let's assume for the sake of the argument that Jamat is right, and there is "a real history in those books".
Because at the same time, he now concedes that "Job is a poem" and gives us to understand that "poems [can]... reconstruct genuine narratives".
So I would like confirmation from Jamat that he accepts a degree of poetic reconstruction in, say, Job and Jonah.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't denied that there was a real Job or Jonah son of Amittai.
Even if there weren't and the historiography was on a par with that of Geoffrey of Monmouth, say, then would that make the books 'fraudulent'?
Geoffrey of Monmouth is hopeless as history but as an imaginative slant on the past it's interesting and valuable - although clearly no where near as much as Bede, although we aren't dealing with histography in the modern sense either.
I can't really understand how or why the integrity or status of scripture is undermined if it includes more imaginative material. To hold that it it strikes me as showing well, a lack of imagination ...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
All agreed. Let's not let Jamat off the hook here.
Jamat, do you accept a degree of "poetic reconstruction" in books such as Jonah and Job?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I haven't denied that there was a real Job or Jonah son of Amittai.
I don’t think there was a real Jonah, because the power in the story is that it’s incredible. But I’m very happy to be wrong about that - it would just mean that my interpretation would turn out to be duff. I’m sure lots of my interpretations are wrong.
It’s not new to interpret Jonah as a parable; according to Jerome, in the fourth century many saw it as a representing the ultimate repentance of Satan and his angels, represented by the King and people of Nineveh (that’s how evil the people of Nineveh were perceived). But yeah, I wouldn’t deny that Jonah existed, I just find it unlikely.
As for Job, I’m on the fence. I don’t think it makes much difference either way. If he was a real person, his story is obviously heavily dramatised (with as much poetic license as most Hollywood ‘true’ stories).
I’d really like it if Jamat would give a straight answer to Eutychus’s question. I’d also like to know what he’d say to someone more conservative than him, who would assert that Jesus parables are true, historical stories that happened -otherwise Jesus is a liar and a fraud. I guess we’d end up going in circles again, talking about the “clear signals” that Jesus is making the parables up. But I already tried to engage with the clear signals thing with no response. Maybe I’d suggest reading Rob Bell’s What we talk about when we talk about God, which explores these things, but Rob Bell’s probably a heretic so not worth listening to.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jamat is an unchangeable catalyst who gets us to refine our positions outside him. We get to explore the fact that there is no foretelling prophecy necessitating God the Killer or interventionist beyond the incarnation and by the Spirit. That despite the perfection of materialism, there is hope.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jamat is an unchangeable catalyst who gets us to refine our positions outside him.
I am finding this to be true.
I would still like to know whether Jamat does indeed accept a degree of "poetic reconstruction" in books such as Jonah and Job.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I hope not and I'm sure not. We love him as he is surely? He certainly loves us despite our genteel hostility.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That's the implication of what he's said in recent posts, as summarised here.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I think where the crossed wires might be is that Jamat genuinely thinks that we’re making unfounded assertions and he’s not. From his point of view, saying “It’s historical” is not contentious, but saying “It doesn’t necessarily have to be historical”, or “It’s not historical” is contentious. Hence why he doesn’t need to back up his assertions, but others do.
This is probably the bit that flummoxes me the most. In particular,
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Once again I am on the wrong side of 'prove this!'
The text says what it says.
The text is scripture.
The contention is that the text is non historical.
That sequence just doesn’t follow, for me. To my mind, saying, “It’s definitely historical” is just as contentious as saying, “It might or might not be.” - maybe more.
That’s the bit that I simply can’t follow. Jamat, if you can explain how this follows in your mind, I’d really appreciate it. Obviously we’re all making various assertions. I just don’t get why you feel you don’t have to back yours up, but others do. Of course, I’m happy to back mine up. You?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, it's all predicated on his view of inerrancy of course. 'It's scripture, and if you lot have a problem with it then that's your issue, not mine ...'
On Jonah as a real person ... Why not?
It doesn't mean that your interpretation is wrong, Goperryrevs.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's the implication of what he's said in recent posts, as summarised here.
He's talking form, not content. Job and Jonah are history to Jamat and always will be.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Even if it is assumed they contain history, Jamat seems to be asserting that they are a poetic reconstruction of history, and it is this assertion I'd like to verify from the man himself.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Is that Hell I hear thawing?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
I've always thought 'inerrancy' is not an ideal word to apply to Scripture precisely because I follow the general idea of that Tyndale quote I keep referring to. In a sense only Scripture that is always what I'd call "dumb wooden literal" can be fully 'inerrant', and the Scriptures clearly aren't that simplistically literal, but use varied genres and literary devices which the pedantic might see as 'errant' rather than legitimate literary artistry.
So at one end Luke, in Acts and the Gospel, is intending to be seriously historical, and research sources for the life of Jesus. There are some literary devices but not, I think, anywhere near total invention. (I'll likely be following this up in the DH thread which seems to be sharing a lot with this one).
Go further back and some of the history is bald 'chronicle/annal' material, while some might reasonably be described as 'saga' - if you like, the exciting dramatic 'round the campfire' version, but basically true. While if you go right back to early Genesis, there is stuff which isn't exactly the same as but is, shall we say, more like Orwell's "Animal Farm" than it is like an academic version of the Russian Revolution - true in very important ways, but not literal history as normally understood nowadays....
Job - I think a substrate of truth in a folk tale, but used by a gifted "Hebrew Shakespeare" to create a dramatic examination of issues around suffering and especially innocent suffering.
Jonah - honestly not sure but willing to accept the possibility that it is a parable rather than a literal history if that will help people over their inability to 'swallow' the fish...! Jonah as a person does appear to be historical - II Kings 14 v25, dating to c790BCE - and one wonders if he was "the kind of person you'd tell such a story about". The fish doesn't bother me; but the geography of a voyage to Tarshish (West Med) ending in a fish vomiting Jonah out near Nineveh doesn't work too well.
Prophecy of course is a different genre; but I tend to the view that we should accept background history as basically truth. Daniel I understand offers particular difficulties because it is partly in Aramaic and has other intrusions (in the LXX) which nowadays are relegated in Protestant lands to the 'Apocrypha'.
You have an added difficulty in discussing this because Jamat seems to be coming from the biblically dubious position of the "Rapture followed by 'third coming' followed by Millennium" idea which as far as I'm concerned is not true biblical interpretation anyway but the consequence of C19 mistakes. Daniel is on the one hand important to that view but also likely to be somewhat skewed if interpreted by it. Like most followers of that view Jamat is of course convinced that he is following Scripture.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think 'saga' is a good way of putting it and the 'Animal Farm' analogy also holds.
Where I might part company with you, Steve, is the claim that the 'pedantic' may find some of the more poetic / saga / mythological material (myth in the C S Lewis sense) as 'errant'.
Something written by a 'Hebrew Shakespeare' can be true to the human condition and experience without having to be factually and literally accurate at all points.
As for literary elements in Acts, sure there are going to be less of those, perhaps, than in OT historiography, but there are still a substantial amount of them, as there is in any literature of this period - or any literature of whatever kind.
Jamat still hasn't told us whether he thinks Job or Jonah are poetic reconstructions of literal events.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I don't know why the question is being asked. Of course he does. For fundamentalists there is no such thing as poetic, theatrical, literary truth without all the metaphors being as immediately concrete as possible. Every character is real unless the divine character in the story says it's a story. And even then. So, Lazarus and Dives are real people. All, the people in the parables are real people. If push comes to shove. Jamat is the same yesterday, today and forever in this. He is not changing, he will not, can not change, only harden. All we can do is use him to refine our positions among ourselves apart from him, which is what has happened on this and related threads. No one here now can defend God knowing anything beyond the momentum of history, of material reality apart from by the intervention of the incarnation.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
poetic reconstructions of literal events.
That the Bible is literally God’s revelation to man is my only non-negotiable. That is because I continually experience its power. I do not like the word inerrant because it works mainly, it seems to me, on the mental or intellectual level. There are many other levels.
If you make empirical fact your main measure of stuff then You miss something. However, if you seek to dismiss empirical fact, then you take a dimension out of those levels that include it but are not defined by it.
I think I would not say that the Bible is God’s literal revelation to man but that as written above, that it is so, literally. That might seem like sleight of hand but it lifts the word ‘literally’ into where perhaps it is a better fit for the realities one might wish to describe.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'll take that as meaning that you do accept a degree of poetic reconstruction.
More to follow when I get time.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think 'saga' is a good way of putting it and the 'Animal Farm' analogy also holds.
Where I might part company with you, Steve, is the claim that the 'pedantic' may find some of the more poetic / saga / mythological material (myth in the C S Lewis sense) as 'errant'.
Something written by a 'Hebrew Shakespeare' can be true to the human condition and experience without having to be factually and literally accurate at all points.
As for literary elements in Acts, sure there are going to be less of those, perhaps, than in OT historiography, but there are still a substantial amount of them, as there is in any literature of this period - or any literature of whatever kind.
Jamat still hasn't told us whether he thinks Job or Jonah are poetic reconstructions of literal events.
You are, I think, illustrating my point that 'inerrancy' is a somewhat more slippery and less 'black and white' concept than is often portrayed - which is why I prefer to avoid it.
In terms of Luke's writings what I mean by 'literary devices' would not be a suggestion that Luke has in effect 'made up' anything in his account. But for example in Acts 24 Luke portrays an orator, Tertullus, brought in to make a case against Paul; and he reproduces the initial flourishes and compliments to the judge but then give what must be only a summary of the rest of the speech - a professional like Tertullus would certainly have said a lot more....
And is the poetry of the 'Magnificat' really exactly what Mary said in that conversation with her cousin Elizabeth - or is it a later poetic rendering of initially confused joyous emotions processed through meditation? Substantially accurate to the actual event, but not literal.
And is the 'Sermon on the Plain' (or its 'on the Mount' equivalent in Matthew) really a record of an actual sermon on a particular occasion, or is it rather the kind of thing that in a modern biography would probably be introduced by something like "Imagine this person came to your town - this is the kind of thing you might have heard...." That is, it's a 'framing device' to put in a lot of Jesus' words that Luke or Matthew had collected; authentic teaching, imaginary occasion....
And I still think a discussion of Daniel where one party holds to the 'Left Behind' view and others don't is going to be a discussion with lots of cross purposes.... From my viewpoint one group are probably too lax about Scripture while the guy who is trying to be exact has unfortunately made a massive misunderstanding...!
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
By Jamat
quote:
I think I would not say that the Bible is God’s literal revelation to man but that as written above, that it is so, literally. That might seem like sleight of hand but it lifts the word ‘literally’ into where perhaps it is a better fit for the realities one might wish to describe.
My apologies to those who've seen it before, but here is "that" Tyndale quote again....
quote:
Tyndale on the ‘Literal Sense’
“Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way.
Nevertheless the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently.”
And a brief reminder that Tyndale is writing in the context of the old "Four-fold Sense" medieval interpretation in which the 'literal' sense was one of the four and as you can see from Tyndale's description did not mean a flat literalism but an idea that we might approximately express as 'reading Scripture like other books with allowance for figures of speech, literary devices, different genres, etc'. "As all other speeches do" means something like "That's the way human language works in general..."
Jamat, you've possibly not come across this one before; does it correspond at all to your views?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok, Steve Langton, so how about when Luke tells us that Herod was struck down by an angel and then 'eaten by worms' and died ...
Do we take that literally?
It does seem from historical accounts that he suffered a sudden wasting illness, and there's been a lot of speculation as to what it might have been.
But are we to imagine an angel literally striking him down? How does Luke know? Did anyone see it?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, Steve Langton, so how about when Luke tells us that Herod was struck down by an angel and then 'eaten by worms' and died ...
Do we take that literally?
It does seem from historical accounts that he suffered a sudden wasting illness, and there's been a lot of speculation as to what it might have been.
But are we to imagine an angel literally striking him down? How does Luke know? Did anyone see it?
In those days illnesses that resulted in infestations of maggots or similar were I gather well-known though not common - usually also involving some kind of gangrene. Luke is I guess telling us that Herod's sudden fatal illness was a direct 'judgement of God' on his hubris. If you mean "Would anyone at the arena where Herod acted out his pride have seen an angel strike him down?" I guess not.
Short answer, I don't know. But also not too bothered about it. Luke won't have been an eyewitness here, we don't know where his sources probably in the Judean church got their information.
Plus this really belongs in the DH thread where I do intend to follow some of it up - here I'd rather stick to the Daniel issues as much as possible; I'm just trying to among other things discover what Jamat's parameters are here....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, so what we are dealing with is a 'natural' event which the early Christians interpreted in terms of divine judgement.
But yes, let's get back to Daniel and Jamat's parameters.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
poetic reconstructions of literal events.
That the Bible is literally God’s revelation to man is my only non-negotiable. That is because I continually experience its power.
Jamat, I've answered you at greater length on the thread in Dead Horses; I think Steve is right that discussion beyond Daniel really belongs there.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
It may take a while but I've decided to explore the Daniel passage via Calvin's commentary - which has the advantage of being written before the early C19 prophetic enthusiasm. Wonder what I'll find...?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Jamat seems to be coming from the biblically dubious position of the "Rapture followed by 'third coming' followed by Millennium" idea which as far as I'm concerned is not true biblical interpretation anyway but the consequence of C19 mistakes
That is correct summation of the dispensational position. I would suggest it is clearly discernible from a reading of scripture that pretty well anyone can understand. Other readings seem to me to fall into the mire of hopeless confusion.
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event. The two roles of Messiah, suffering servant and king, were not discernible until they occurred but are clear in retrospect. Similarly, we have contradictory accounts of the second coming which I suspect will also be clear in retrospect.
Regarding 19 century mistakes, I do not think they were. I prefer to see what Darby did was elucidate a spectacular omission of the reformers who never dealt with the errors of Roman Catholic eschatology.
Finally, Steve, coming back to the topic, what do you make of Daniel’s 70th week? If Robert Andersen is correct that Jesus presented himself to the nation as Messiah precisely 69 sevens of 360 day years allowing for leap year days, after the decree of Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 BC, that leaves a critical 7 week period of time yet to be fulfilled if once again, as Andersen suggests, the prophetic ‘clock’ ceased to tick from the point Israel rejected their Messiah.
I realise you probably do not accept the above assumptions as I do, but ..the 70th week? You cannot see that Daniel’s prophecy, so accurate in its first part, as yet fully fulfilled. Evvil is not yet dealt with fully and the kingdom of God not yet evident in any political sense. So what do you make of it?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event.
As is made clear by representations such as the 'Left Behind' books/films, the rapture of millions of people from earth can hardly be a 'secret' event. The explanation may be 'secret' to those who haven't heard of those books/films and all the similar ones; but it can't avoid being very public.
I'll come back to you on that one; and on Daniel though as I said, I'm going to check out Calvin first - not that I consider him infallible, just that I happen to have his commentary and it is probably a good guide to pre-Irving/Darby thinking.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
By the way, there is only a second coming. The rapture is a secret not a public event.
As is made clear by representations such as the 'Left Behind' books/films, the rapture of millions of people from earth can hardly be a 'secret' event. The explanation may be 'secret' to those who haven't heard of those books/films and all the similar ones; but it can't avoid being very public.
I'll come back to you on that one; and on Daniel though as I said, I'm going to check out Calvin first - not that I consider him infallible, just that I happen to have his commentary and it is probably a good guide to pre-Irving/Darby thinking.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It hardly matters if it's secret or open, since it's not real. It's a teaching of man, not of God. You might as well ask if the destruction of the One True Ring was secret or open, and try to base some point of Christian theology on that. You can't because it's not part of Christian revelation.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It only reads as a natural and clearly discerned way of approaching these issues if one chooses to read scripture in that particular way.
I was never convinced by the whole Dispensationalist thing when I first encountered it as a young evangelical convert. Even then I thought it was contrived and over-egged and that was before I was aware that there were evangelicals who took a different view.
It struck me that there appeared to be a correlation between the amount of time those who were into such speculations spent speculating and the amount of time they actually spent doing something useful ie. far, far more on the former than the latter.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It hardly matters if it's secret or open, since it's not real. It's a teaching of man, not of God. You might as well ask if the destruction of the One True Ring was secret or open, and try to base some point of Christian theology on that. You can't because it's not part of Christian revelation.
Obviously agreeing with you there, mt. I was just trying to point out to Jamat the - well, absurdity - of describing such an event as 'secret'. If it were real, the Rapture couldn't possibly be 'secret' in any meaningful way. The Rapture described in the NT is a decidedly public event.
BTW, when I was younger the 'Rapture' was generally described by its advocates as the 'second coming' of Jesus, which would make it simply accurate to refer to his later (supposed) return with the Church as a 'third coming'. I'm a bit puzzled that Jamat doesn't so regard it...?
One of the problems of that theology is that once you've come to believe it it kind of 'takes over' the whole Scripture as the advocates reinterpret everything else to fit their new idea - which is why I went back to the C19 roots to see if there was a misstep there, rather than trying to argue with the developed form of the idea. Fortunately there is an obvious misstep and once realised you don't really need to engage with the massive and potentially bewildering expansions which then followed.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: fortunately, there is an obvious misstep
Please explain what it was Steve.
Regarding the ’secret’ idea, dispensational theologians see the rapture of the church as only discernible after it occurs. Obviously, the disappearance of so many people will not be unobserved. They do not see this event as part of the second coming which will be seen by all when it occurs. In the second coming, Jesus returns physically to the earth; in the rapture he does not but appears in the sky to resurrect dead saints and call living ones home.
[ 11. February 2018, 11:23: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Briefly...!
The 'obvious misstep' occurred because in reacting (rightly) against an existing predominantly 'post-millennial' view (in Scotland), which made the Second Coming anything but urgent, Irving started preaching an extremely imminent Second Coming. Pretty much "It might be any second!" And this created a climate among his followers of thinking that you were only properly expecting Jesus' return if you were exactly expecting it any second.
Irving then also discovered the millennial speculations of 'Ben-Ezra', the pen-name actually of a Jesuit apparently, and started preaching pre- rather than post-millennialism.
However, when Irving's followers started exploring the prophetic Scriptures for further enlightenment, they began to find passages which as far as they could tell had not been fulfilled, yet did not fit in the millennium either. Where and how could these be fulfilled if the Second Coming must be expected 'any second now'?
Somehow - with apparently some guidance from a prophet in Irving's group (he had also attempted to revive charismatic gifts) Darby came up with the idea that the Second Coming would not be the immediate end but would be followed by the period of Tribulation and of the AntiChrist during which those prophecies would find fulfilment.
This is a misstep for all kinds of reasons. The most obvious, and very biblical, is the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonians who had in their day become over-enthusiastic about an imminent Return of Jesus. At that point he essentially told them that there were prophecies about the 'man of lawlessness' yet to be fulfilled and they could, without becoming totally complacent, scale back from 'Red Alert' to 'Amber Alert' till they saw those prophecies fulfilled. They would no longer be expecting an 'any second' Return - but it was perfectly proper to have such a level of expectation till things were clearer.
Applying that to the Darby situation, Darby could have resolved the situation of those unfulfilled prophecies in either of two legitimate ways - or indeed a combination of the two. He could have said that discovering those unfulfilled prophecies put them in the position of the Thessalonians, and they could somewhat relax their imminent expectation just as the Thessalonians did. Or he could have said that despite their best efforts, perhaps they had misunderstood the prophecies and the prophecies had in fact been fulfilled but not in the way the prophetic students had expected, so it was still possible the Return could be at any second.
Better still perhaps, he could have combined those options and said with caution that it seemed they might scale back that 'Red Alert'; but also be humble about possible interpretation mistakes, and say that if they had been mistaken the Return might still be imminent.
Incidentally, given that many of their interpretations named then current historical characters like Napoleon and Napoleon III, I think it's fair comment that the near two centuries gap since then shows that they were indeed mistaken in lots of those interpretations....
Instead Darby chose an option which left the prophecies unfulfilled, but still insisted on the belief in an 'any second' Return. The only way that could work in the ideas they'd already developed was to insert a 'left behind' period into the prophetic timetable in which there could be fulfilment, dividing the Second Coming into two stages, one 'for the Church/the Rapture', and the other to deal with everybody else.
In the state of artificially heightened expectation that had been created in the movement, this rapidly took off and spread and was particularly helped by the notes of the Schofield Bible which followed the scheme.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
A 'stand-out' moment for me at a conference I attended in 2002 was when a Presbyterian speaker from the US spontaneously joined forces with Dr Andrew Walker the sociologist (Pentecostal turned agnostic turned Orthodox) to debunk a set of questions 'from the floor' with a distinctly Dispensationalist flavour.
Rather than demonstrating that the Reformers failed to disengage themselves from the 'errors of Roman Catholic eschatology' (and yes, I know Orthodox aren't Roman Catholics), it showed how these older traditions were a lot smarter when it came to dealing with these issues than the Johnny-Come-Lately eschatological speculators of the 19th century.
I was convinced then, and even more convinced now, that Dispensationalism is a complete red-herring. Whether or not its harmful or harmless I leave others to decide.
For my part, I can't be doing with it because I find it a complete and utter waste of time.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: Somehow - with apparently some guidance from a prophet in Irving's group (he had also attempted to revive charismatic gifts) Darby came up with the idea that the Second Coming would not be the immediate end but would be followed by the period of Tribulation and of the AntiChrist during which those prophecies would find fulfilment.
This is a misstep for all kinds of reasons. The most obvious, and very biblical, is the advice Paul gave to the Thessalonians who had in their day become over-enthusiastic about an imminent Return of Jesus. At that point he essentially told them that there were prophecies about the 'man of lawlessness' yet to be fulfilled and they could, without becoming totally complacent, scale back from 'Red Alert' to 'Amber Alert' till they saw those prophecies fulfilled. They would no longer be expecting an 'any second' Return - but it was perfectly proper to have such a level of expectation till things were clearer.
Discussion of the influence of Edward Irving on JN Darby
Steve, I appreciate that the essence of what you posted here is reasonably accurate as to the shared ideas of Irving and Darby. There is a possibility that the two were thinking independently along similar lines but It is almost certain that even if that were true, Darby was reinforced in his thinking by reading Irving. (See the link posted.)
It seems though that the misstep you refer to is about the interpretation of 1 Thes 4:14-5:4. This is where I differ with you. The way I read that passage or would exegete it if you like, and the way Darby would have,is to see two clear scenarios at work.
In v15 of ch4 we have the rapture..an event in which dead saints are resurrected and live ones transformed to meet the Lord in the air. In 5:1;2 we have a reference to the ‘day of the Lord’. This latter reference is introduced by a contrastive phrase, ‘peri de’ that means ‘now,concerning and indicates a change of subject that is obvious in Greek but less so in the English translation.
This means of course that Paul is referring to the rapture then changes subject to discuss the day of the Lord as a separate thing. The confusion arises when the English translation seems to mash the two separate things together. In fact the rapture does not occur at the same time as and is not part of the’day of the Lord’
In other words, I would see this as a corrective understanding,not a misstep.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
This latter reference is introduced by a contrastive phrase, ‘peri de’ that means ‘now,concerning' and indicates a change of subject that is obvious in Greek but less so in the English translation.
(added an apostrophe there after 'concerning' - hope that was OK)
I'll be back a greater length later, but basically I think you're misapplying that contrastive.
Paul has spoken of a particular aspect of the Second Coming on which the Thessalonians needed reassurance; "What of those who die before then - who may indeed have already died? Will they miss out?"
Having dealt with that he does indeed move on to another issue - "But concerning the times and the seasons..." That is "But when will this happen?" So he's not contrasting the day of the Rapture with the 'day of the Lord'. He's contrasting "Now I've told you your dead friends are safe and will be with us that day..." with another aspect of "But when will it - the one event - happen?"
And he reminds them that it will be unexpected - though not surprising to believers. 'That day' will be 'like a thief in the night' in its unexpectedness, catastrophic to unbelievers. Though it will also be very public, of course....
I can see no reason in the text to make it refer to two separate days - that's not 'exegesis/reading out of', but 'eisegesis/reading in' something which itself must be brought to the text from elsewhere. And in this case not from elsewhere in the Scriptures, but from what I've called the misstep - which relates not to I Thess 4-5 but to II Thess 2.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Heh. I'll start worrying about taking Scripture literally when you lot decide what its literal meaning actually is...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton: basically I think you're misapplying that contrastive.
I am no Greek scholar and I get that from Fruchtenbaum who references it also in Matt24:36 which is even less discernible in English translation.
In that scripture, if you accept it as a separation, of subject, it completely clarifies the anomalies of that chapter. Essentially, Jesus deals with both the subject of the rapture and his second coming.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Will get back to you on Matt 24. But in I Thess, the issue is of what is being contrasted. Your claim is that the separate events of (your party's version of) the Rapture and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
However, as far as I can see, what is actually being contrasted by that 'but as to...' is on the one hand the Thessalonian Christians' concern that people who have already died might somehow miss the benefits of Jesus' coming, and on the other hand the issue of when that ONE SAME coming might be.
The text contains no hint of two separate events, years apart, unless you bring that in from elsewhere and force the text to conform to it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Not this again ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Steve Langton : and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
No, I am not saying it speaks of the second coming but the 'day of the Lord'
This is an idiom for the last days judgement dispensationalists and premillennialists (who are dispensationalists) call 'the tribulation.'
The 'day of the Lord' is a time when God judges humanity via the reign of the 'man of sin'(see 2 Thes) before the second coming.. which sorts it all out
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Steve Langton : and (again your party's version of) the Second/Third coming are being contrasted.
No, I am not saying it speaks of the second coming but the 'day of the Lord'
This is an idiom for the last days judgement dispensationalists and premillennialists (who are dispensationalists) call 'the tribulation.'
The 'day of the Lord' is a time when God judges humanity via the reign of the 'man of sin'(see 2 Thes) before the second coming.. which sorts it all out
So to clarify;
I believe that after all prophecies for this age have been fulfilled, Jesus returns again exactly once.
At that time dead believers will rise and will join believers still living in being 'caught up/raptured' to meet the Lord 'in the air' and accompany his triumphant and very public return.
This will be followed by the general resurrection, the Last Judgement, and the 'new heavens and new earth'.
In your version the Rapture means that Jesus returns seen only by believers and resurrected believers who are taken out of the world for the next seven years.
The 'day of the Lord' is not a single day but refers to the whole 'tribulation' period, that seven years of the rule of the man of lawlessness.
After that Jesus returns seen by all to initiate his millennial rule on earth - and that in your party's terms is regarded as the 'Second Coming'. The millennial rule is still over an unrenewed earth and ends in a final battle with Satan's forces, and only after that comes the Judgement and the renewal of all things.
Hmmmm!
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
By Steve Langton
quote:
In your version the Rapture means that Jesus returns seen only by believers and resurrected believers who are taken out of the world for the next seven years.
No, in this scenario, he cannot be said to have returned. Actually, what happens is the believers disappear. In all probability, the first thing non Christians will know about it will be when they notice people have gone.
It does say that the Lord descends from heaven with a shout from the archangel and there must be a sound of the trumpet of God, 1Thes 4:16 but this seems to be a sound only true believers and the ‘dead in Christ’ hear. If he was returning at that stage to earth, then it is hard to see why believers meet him in the air.
The second coming of Christ to earth has to be an international event everyone witnesses. He returns to rescue the remnant of Israel at the climax at the battle of Armageddon. His feet touch the mount of olives..as he left,so he comes back ..Zechariah 14:4 Acts1:9-12.
[ 19. February 2018, 07:08: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Wow! Went down this morning, made a cup of tea for my wife AND SHE'S NOT HERE!!!
Daren't put on the radio.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
A long time ago I got a lift with a US missionary in Marseille. Sitting on the passenger side, I was confronted with a large rapture-themed sticker beginning "Warning: the driver of this car may disappear at any time".
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
There are actually businesses in the US with whom you can contract, for a small monthly fee, to take care of your pets after you are raptured. Naturally these persons are not Christians, so that they can be sure they'll be around after the big day. And since they don't believe in the Rapture they're happy to take your money for a contingency that they believe will never happen.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There are actually businesses in the US with whom you can contract, for a small monthly fee, to take care of your pets after you are raptured. Naturally these persons are not Christians, so that they can be sure they'll be around after the big day. And since they don't believe in the Rapture they're happy to take your money for a contingency that they believe will never happen.
Same reasoning as insurance companies..fascinating.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Thanks to Martin, Eutychus and Brenda for the comedy interlude....
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
By Steve Langton
quote:
In your version the Rapture means that Jesus returns seen only by believers and resurrected believers who are taken out of the world for the next seven years.
No, in this scenario, HE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE RETURNED. (my capitalisation SL) Actually, what happens is the believers disappear. In all probability, the first thing non Christians will know about it will be when they notice people have gone.
It does say that the Lord descends from heaven with a shout from the archangel and there must be a sound of the trumpet of God, 1Thes 4:16 but this seems to be a sound only true believers and the ‘dead in Christ’ hear. If he was returning at that stage to earth, then it is hard to see why believers meet him in the air.
The second coming of Christ to earth has to be an international event everyone witnesses. He returns to rescue the remnant of Israel at the climax at the battle of Armageddon. His feet touch the mount of olives..as he left,so he comes back ..Zechariah 14:4 Acts1:9-12.
As you point out there
quote:
It does say (in I Thess 4; 16) that the Lord descends from heaven
I find it hard not to describe that as a 'return', and since Jesus' first coming was his Incarnation and earthly life, I also find it hard not to describe it as a 'second coming' with the (supposed) post-Tribulation return as a 'third coming'.
OK, I've not paid a lot of attention to this in recent years, and it's anyway an issue of terminology rather than substance, but through most of my early life it was the Rapture that was referred to by 'dispensationalists/Left-Behind-believers' as the 'Second Coming'. When did this change of terminology occur among them?
quote:
as he left,so he comes back ..Zechariah 14:4 Acts 1:9-12.
So why - apart from the Irving/Darby misstep - can that not be the same thing as the descent with the archangel and trumpet? With archangel and trumpet witnessed by all...? Surely the angel in the Acts passage should have made clear that there would actually be this not-exactly-coming thing first for believers and that other return actually years later; after all, he is giving this message to disciples/believers to whom the 'Rapture', if it had occurred in their lifetime, would be more relevant than the later coming to which you say the passage refers....
quote:
it is hard to see why believers meet him in the air
Not really if you think in terms of a triumphant return - like a cup-winning football team with all the supporters flocking out to meet the team and escort them in triumph....
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
By Steve Langton:
quote:
So why - apart from the Irving/Darby misstep - can that not be the same thing as the descent with the archangel and trumpet?
Because, the second coming.. where he lands on the Earth, is prefaced by specific events such as the repentance of Israel..( they shall look on him whom they pierced etc..) in the 1thes 4 scenario and in the 1Cor 15 one, it specifically concerns the church, not literal Israel. Also If we rise to meet him in the air, it suggests that’s where he is.
You need to deal with a lot of dissonance and confusion if you say one is the other. That is why keeping them separate clarifies Matt 24. At v36, the contrastive signal indicates that the coming of the son of man ‘as in the days of Noah’ is not the same event as referenced earlier in the chapter where He arrives publically as lightning comes from east to west.
The days of Noah are days of normality, marrying, business etc. The days of the coming as lightning is in a time the earth is in crisis and he rescues, restores and publically judges.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
She'd gone jogging.
No just-so-story necessary.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
By Steve Langton:
quote:
So why - apart from the Irving/Darby misstep - can that not be the same thing as the descent with the archangel and trumpet?
Because, the second coming.. where he lands on the Earth, is prefaced by specific events such as the repentance of Israel..( they shall look on him whom they pierced etc..) in the 1thes 4 scenario and in the 1Cor 15 one, it specifically concerns the church, not literal Israel. Also If we rise to meet him in the air, it suggests that’s where he is.
You need to deal with a lot of dissonance and confusion if you say one is the other. That is why keeping them separate clarifies Matt 24. At v36, the contrastive signal indicates that the coming of the son of man ‘as in the days of Noah’ is not the same event as referenced earlier in the chapter where He arrives publically as lightning comes from east to west.
The days of Noah are days of normality, marrying, business etc. The days of the coming as lightning is in a time the earth is in crisis and he rescues, restores and publically judges.
No time for a full answer now - but as I see it, we (Christians) rise to meet Him in the air AS he descends to land on earth, to accompany his triumphant return.
And separating the Church and Israel is part of the Irving/Darby misstep. Or more accurately, failing to understand the continuity from Israel to the Church as "God's holy people".
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
separating the Church and Israel is part of the Irving/Darby misstep. Or more accurately, failing to understand the continuity from Israel to the Church
The fact is that Darby is absolutely correct in this and so is Sir Robert Andersen. If all the promises of Israel now belong solely to the church, as in replacement theology, how does the church escape the judgements of Israel?
This confusion was Augustine’s approach and has led directly to the antisemitism that led Pope Pius 12 to bank roll the Nazi party and later create rat lines for thie war criminals.
In modern times it has led to the particular blindness regarding God’s engineering to create the modern state of Israel, something Andersen never dreamed of could happen yet predicted must happen on the basis of his eschatology. He states in The Coming Prince P150 ch 12.
“The prophecies of a restored Israel seem to many as incredible as the triumphs of electricity would have appeared to our ancestors a century ago..”
I would suggest modern events argue against your assumption
there was any theological misstep.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
XII
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
...as in replacement theology,...
NOT replacement theology, CONTINUITY theology. Remember that Israel rejecting the Messiah is outside the covenant anyway....
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This confusion was Augustine’s approach and has led directly to the antisemitism that led Pope Pius 12 to bank roll the Nazi party and later create rat lines for thie war criminals.
Just what is the evidence behind both of these assertions please?
[ 21. February 2018, 01:47: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Jamat;
quote:
...as in replacement theology,...
NOT replacement theology, CONTINUITY theology. Remember that Israel rejecting the Messiah is outside the covenant anyway....
Continuity theology? Well that’s a new thought. Does it still ignore the covenant promises to Israel? God has no specific covenant in scripture with the church does he? The only covenant statement of the NT refers to the ‘new’ covenant at the last supper but this seems to be the basis for the Jeremiah 31 new covenant..which is specifically with the house of Israel. Paul in Romans 9-12 references the covenants as belonging to Israel of which gentile believers are partakers..not takers over.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This confusion was Augustine’s approach and has led directly to the antisemitism that led Pope Pius 12 to bank roll the Nazi party and later create rat lines for thie war criminals.
Just what is the evidence behind both of these assertions please?
If you want a snapshot, maybe look at the book by Aaron’s and Loftus called Unholy Trinity or the1994 Pimetime live documentary with Sam Donaldson called The Last Refuge.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Those sit ill with the first encyclical Pius XII (not 12 please) wrote; his Christmas message in 1942; his protests at the deportation of Jews from France; and his actions in Hungary which contributed to the cessation of the removal of Jewish people from Hungary to death camps in Poland. There are numerous other examples not mentioned in the book you refer to, which seemed to me at the time to be polemical works rather than historical.
HH could have spoken more often and more publicly than he did. OTOH, he made numerous objections of a less public nature, but to those promulgating the policies and putting them into effect.
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned? There's no doubt that some clergy and others in orders were involved with these, but so far there's no evidence of either action or condonation by HH. If there's been none so far, there's unlikely to be any in the future.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
Continuity theology? Well that’s a new thought. Does it still ignore the covenant promises to Israel?
It may be a new name for it - but definitely not a new thought. Is Hebrews not in the Dispensationalist Bible?
The Church, comprising Jews who follow the Messiah plus Gentile converts adopted into Abraham's people, is "...a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people..." in continuity with the OT people of God since in Christ God broke down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2; 11-22). In Christ Jew and Gentile are equal in the Church which fulfils the ancient promise of blessing to 'all the families of the earth' through Abraham. Are you really happy to put asunder that which God has so emphatically joined?
Romans does indeed say that Gentiles are partakers of rather than takers over - but it also has the image of the ONE 'olive tree' into which the Gentiles are grafted, but from which, for now, disobedient Jews who reject Jesus are cut off. It is still ONE olive tree, not two.
This certainly becomes confused in Augustine and generally in the churches since the fourth century CE which attempted to create kingdoms 'of this world' for Jesus and rather inevitably saw Jews as dissenters to be persecuted. Agreed that RC attitudes to the Jews have been pretty awful and Pope Pius got it wrong - though like many even in Germany, not sure he fully realised how bad things were till after the war. Not really prepared myself to follow that tangent....
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
Gee D if that is true, you will already know anything I might say and your views will already be set in concrete so I will not waste my time. I realise many wish to sanitise Pacelli. I do not think history does so.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
. Are you really happy to put asunder that which God has so emphatically joined?
Steve, with regard to olive trees, Paul says there is one,it is Jewish and the gentiles are grafted into it. The baseline teaching of Paul is that God in Christ has eliminated barriers that kept the gentiles from fellowship with him. It does not thereby imply that the Jews are set aside in favour of the church which some ( not you) might think. But nor does it mean that both groups are subsumed into an amorphous conglomerate where Jewish identity is swallowed into a new spiritual entity called the church. To teach that makes the whole corpus of God’s promises to national Israel in the Old Testament wrong. It makes God a liar.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
Who?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Would you say that the King-Emperor at the time was George 6? I thought not.
As to your first - i've read this over the last 30 years or more. You're making a strong assertion, it's up to you to produce evidence in support.
Gee D if that is true, you will already know anything I might say and your views will already be set in concrete so I will not waste my time. I realise many wish to sanitise Pacelli. I do not think history does so.
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
What evidence is there of the rat lines he allegedly organised or even condoned
You can do your own research..for me, his protestations and his actions do not line up. History can be a bit stubborn really. The Vatican supported the Nazis and did not take a step to stop the holocaust..but then neither did lots of others.
But just imagine the effect of a strong word from Pius 12 on all those Catholic German soldiers.
I think that there is a case that Pope Pius XII equivocated like a motherfucker, to quote Biubbles from the Wire. To say that the Vatican supported the Nazis is basically to slide into lizard territory. Pius basically thought that the Nazis were wrong, but hesitated to go out on a limb. lest he condemned the Nazis and condoned the Stalinists. But his radio broadcast of 1942 was taken by the RSHA as condemning Nazi policy towards Jews and others and Pius understood and intended the broadcast in that way. I have no brief for the Papacy in the 1940s (or for that matter in the present day, very much) but to treat them as Nazis in cassocks, is to disregard the historical evidence.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
AIUI he hesitated to condemn the Nazis because it might lead to persecution of Catholics in the areas the Nazis controlled.
Moo
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I will break my Lenten Ship fast to make this single observation.
How come Catholics and anyone else Jamat disagrees with have 'an agenda' but somehow Jamat himself doesn't?
Funny that ...
Oh, silly me. I forgot. He goes by the plain meaning of scripture so can't possibly have one ...
I'll get my coat ...
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Jamat
EPHESIANS 2; 11-22
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Host hat on
Here is the text of Ephesians 2:11-22.
When you cite a Bible passage either provide a link to the text or post it directly. Some people read the boards in locations where they do not have access to a Bible.
Host hat off
Moo
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jamat
EPHESIANS 2; 11-22
Steve, I already explained that in my previous post. That Christ made Jew and Gentile one in terms of their access to God is not the issue, the issue is whether Jews are now no longer a separate entity in God’s view. That is not the case, they ARE still the primary olive tree, To them belong the covenants.
Look at Gal 6:16
“And upon those who will walk by this rule,peace and mercy be upon them,and upon the Israel of God”
Those who will walk are the gentile church, the Israel of God are the Jewish church. Why else would Paul delineate them?
[ 22. February 2018, 05:36: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Jamat
EPHESIANS 2; 11-22
Steve, I already explained that in my previous post. That Christ made Jew and Gentile one in terms of their access to God is not the issue, the issue is whether Jews are now no longer a separate entity in God’s view. That is not the case, they ARE still the primary olive tree, To them belong the covenants.
Look at Gal 6:16
“And upon those who will walk by this rule,peace and mercy be upon them,and upon the Israel of God”
Those who will walk are the gentile church, the Israel of God are the Jewish church. Why else would Paul delineate them?
1)The Ephesians passage could hardly be more emphatic in stating that 'in Christ' the former two are made one, fellow citizens, of 'one family' and so on. It is not just that the separation from God is broken down, it is very much the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
2) In Paul's image of the olive tree he makes clear that the disobedient - those who reject the Messiah -are cut off. And ipso facto forfeit covenant rights as such, though they are not entirely cast off.
3) Gal 6;16
Looks to me like Paul is using here the Hebrew device of parallelism, that "those who will walk by this rule" are the same as "the Israel of God". Not separately delineating two separate parties, but describing the one group in two different ways.
The previous verses giving 'this rule' conclude with "for neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation". Those born anew by faith are equally God's people regardless of circumcision or uncircumcision, Jewish or Gentile ethnicity.
And going back to a previous post, you referred somewhat slightingly to "...an amorphous conglomerate where Jewish identity is swallowed into a new spiritual entity called the church". Though obscured in the KJV, apparently by said King James' political wishes, the word 'church' in the NT is 'ekklesia' - that corresponds to the Hebrew 'qahal', which means 'congregation', the 'assembly' of Israel.
The 'church' is not "a new spiritual entity" but in continuity with that 'congregation' (and BTW was translated accordingly by Tyndale). Not 'amorphous', but an expanded 'congregation' including faithful Gentiles but excluding faithless ethnic Jews.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
Sorry Steve, that is untrue.
You cannot deal adequately with Galatians 6:16 that way. It clearly sets up 2 groups otherwise Paul is being nonsensical.
Regarding Ephesians 2, you fail to make a distinction between spiritual unity and physical unity. I repeat one more time..
Ephesians tells us that the barrier between the gentile and the Jew is gone.
What was that barrier? It is that Christ has taken away the exclusivity of Jewish access to God. Now all can come via Calvary. However, this does not mean that ‘God has rejected his people whom he foreknew,’ (Romans 11:2) they are still set apart for their promised destiny.
This is clear in Romans11:26-29.“The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”
This means, that natural Israel is not permanently rejected and by implication, it means that natural Israel is NOT replaced or superseded by the church.
What then is the church? Ephesians tells us it is “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times”...it is an interregnum, an interlude to temporally meet a need until God sets up a permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ.
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
To rightly grasp the truth of scripture, natural Israel must be kept separate from the church. Darby, Irving and Andersen are correct and no misstep occurred.
It is very hard to change one’s view once it is entrenched. And as we get older, it gets harder and harder. The only thing that can do it is the word of God and for him to penetrate our hearts with his word we must humble them.
[ 22. February 2018, 13:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bollocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Is that a theological term?
So your entrenched views on this issue aren't entrenched and becoming less flexible as you get older, Jamat but other people's are?
Those who take a different view to you aren't being humble but you are?
Is that what you are telling us?
Is this chutzpah I see before me?
Is this a Uriah Heep humility or the genuine article?
Were Darby, Irvine and Andersen being humble or presumptuous in their quirky innovation?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Is that a theological term?
So your entrenched views on this issue aren't entrenched and becoming less flexible as you get older, Jamat but other people's are?
Those who take a different view to you aren't being humble but you are?
Is that what you are telling us?
Is this chutzpah I see before me?
Is this a Uriah Heep humility or the genuine article?
Were Darby, Irvine and Andersen being humble or presumptuous in their quirky innovation?
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Apologies..Accidental slip of the keys above.
Nothing there that really needs a response.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
That quotation from Berenbaum in no way supports any assertion that HH organised rat runs for escaping Nazis. In any event, I've already referred you to Pius XII's first encyclical, written rather well before March 1942; I've also noted the Christmas Message of 1942 which picked up these reports and suggest that you try to read it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Apologies..Accidental slip of the keys above.
Nothing there that really needs a response.
In your humble opinion?
Or from your entrenched position?
Which is it?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
All Western governments knew as soon as the camps were constructed and everything that happened there as soon as it happened. That intel was secret and kept secret for 20 years. It took decades for accounts to be published. NOTHING was in the media (BBC of course) until Belsen was liberated.
They ALL knew everything at the time.
So why single out the RCC?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Is that a rhetorical question?
Jamat grew up RC and moved over to conservative evangelicalism. So it suits his personal narrative to disparage his former affiliation at every opportunity, whether justifiably or not.
Other people do the same thing in reverse or similar things in parallel.
Move along, there's nothing to see here ...
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
I read that as your saying that you have no evidence to support your assertion.
Your concern,not mine. It is a tangent. There is evidence but as I say, you probably know already but are only playing debating games here that do not interest me.
“The Vatican was among the first to know of the genocidal programs, authoritative information was sent to the Vatican by its own diplomats in March 1942”..Michael Berenbaum ‘The World Must Know’ 1993 P156
That quotation from Berenbaum in no way supports any assertion that HH organised rat runs for escaping Nazis. In any event, I've already referred you to Pius XII's first encyclical, written rather well before March 1942; I've also noted the Christmas Message of 1942 which picked up these reports and suggest that you try to read it.
That the ratlines existed is reasonably well attested, as is the fact that Pius XII knew about them. The idea that the Holy Father organised them, OTOH, is completely bonkers.The thing is that you could turn up at the Vatican and complain that you were a victim of communist persecution and someone would rustle you up a plate of linguini whilst you waited for them to sort out your trip to Argentina. It was hardly the Catholic Church's finest hour, but, to be fair it had more to do with anti-Communism than anti-Semitism.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Yes, that's the sort of thing that happened, and far more likely in Turin or Milan than Rome. Payback time for the violence the Fascists had inflicted on the Left in the early 20s. More Italians than Germans were helped this way IIRC.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Jamat;
quote:
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
And do the Jews of 'natural Israel' somehow "come into relationship with the father" by any other means than Christ's death on Calvary?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
Host hat on
If you want to discuss Vatican policy during the Nazi period, start a thread in Purg. This doesn't belong here.
Host hat off
Moo
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye G. It's theological. And as for rhetorical, why do you ask?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
the separation of Israel from the Gentiles which is gone.
Sorry Steve, that is untrue.
You cannot deal adequately with Galatians 6:16 that way. It clearly sets up 2 groups otherwise Paul is being nonsensical.
It would seem rather nonsensical for Paul to say "neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" and then still divide Gentile from Jew in the next verse! It makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community.
Following through Paul's entire argument in the epistle he says, in effect, that it is those of faith who are true sons of Abraham, whether circumcised Jews or uncircumcised Gentiles (the 'Israel of God' actually as opposed to natural Israel!). If anything it is the period of the Law that Paul sees as the temporary thing! But now that period is over,
"...in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, ...slave...free, ...male...female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise"
(Gal 3; 26ff)
quote:
Regarding Ephesians 2, you fail to make a distinction between spiritual unity and physical unity. I repeat one more time..
Ephesians tells us that the barrier between the gentile and the Jew is gone.
What was that barrier? It is that Christ has taken away the exclusivity of Jewish access to God. Now all can come via Calvary. However, this does not mean that ‘God has rejected his people whom he foreknew,’ (Romans 11:2) they are still set apart for their promised destiny.
That is not what Eph 2; 11-22 actually says.
quote:
This is clear in Romans 11:26-29.“The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable”
This means, that natural Israel is not permanently rejected and by implication, it means that natural Israel is NOT replaced or superseded by the church.
As I've said, 'natural Israel' is neither 'replaced' nor 'superceded' by the church - the two bodies are, exactly as Paul says in Ephesians, one body, the church in complete continuity with the OT Jews.
The argument in Romans is not some idea that 'natural Israel' somehow has a separate destiny from those who have followed Christ. He is arguing indeed that God has not totally cast them off; but their destiny is to become Christians or to be lost. As the writer to the Hebrews puts it, "How shall (they) escape if they neglect so great a salvation?" Note that right back in the beginning of ch2 he reminds them that "by no means all who descend from Israel are Israel's...."
quote:
What then is the church? Ephesians tells us it is “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times”...it is an interregnum, an interlude to temporally meet a need until God sets up a permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ.
That isn't an exact quote from Ephesians as far as I can find; rather than guess what you're after there can you give me a more detailed version, please?
As for a 'permanent kingdom through the second coming of Christ', well I believe that myself but I thought Dispensationalists taught only a temporary kingdom in the form of the Millennium?
quote:
What is that need? It is to allow us gentiles to come into relationship with the father through Christ’s death on Calvary.
To rightly grasp the truth of scripture, natural Israel must be kept separate from the church. Darby, Irving and Andersen are correct and no misstep occurred.
If by 'natural Israel' you mean those Jews who don't accept Jesus as Messiah, then clearly they are separate from the church - and also sadly separate from the covenant and ipso facto from God. By GRACE - ie, not as of RIGHT - God will restore Israel by leading them to faith and re-uniting them with his people the Church. (And I remind you that 'church' is not an alien word in relation to Israel - the 'ekklesia' in the LXX is precisely the 'assembly' or 'congregation' of Israel)
quote:
It is very hard to change one’s view once it is entrenched. And as we get older, it gets harder and harder. The only thing that can do it is the word of God and for him to penetrate our hearts with his word we must humble them.
Should perhaps point out that my views were not 'entrenched' one way or other till I was in my 20s; though I certainly found Dispensationalism confusing! That confusion was relieved when I learned more of the story of Irving and Darby and was able to understand where and why they made their (very definite) misstep in understanding prophecy.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
[B] makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community[B]
Steve this comes down to whether we have to make sense of what he says, exegete what he says. You are doing the former
Regarding your overall argument:
it is true that dispensationalism stands entirely on a distinction between natural Israel and the NT church. This is true despite the obvious fact that the two are, in the present aeon combined into a spiritual entity where both partake of the benefits of Christ. That is essentially what Paul teaches both in Eph 2 and Romans 9,10 and 11.
If that distinction is not allowed in one’s theology then, despite any protestation, one is committing to replacement theology as a logical extension. This thinking has inexorably led to antsemitism through the centuries.
If on the other hand, one allows for the distinction,then it becomes quite reasonable to say with Paul that natural Israel is temporarily blinded..as a nation, notwithsanding, individual Jews can be saved, until, the ‘times of the gentiles’ are fulfilled. Indeed he teaches an ultimate national salvation for them when they recognise their messiah. This is taught in Zechariah as well.
To say national Israel is no longer a factor in God’s agenda because they are now integrated into the church,is to invert things. It means that the promises to Israel,yet unfulfilled, cannot be fulfilled and thus,God is a liar. It is this charge Paul refutes..”God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”.
It is true Darby was a flawed and autocratic individual who created great division in the church of his day. However, for me, his grasp of these things was not flawed,not a misstep. The misstep was made far earlier, by Augustine. The reformation maintained his theology in regard to eschatology and this has continued.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bollocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think we'd be hard-pushed to find anyone pre-Augustine who thought like Darby. At times some of the Fathers can sound somewhat Millenarian, but we don't find any of the elaborate pre-tribulation Rapture business until the 1830s.
If we are going to blame Augustine for mis-steps, then I think his eschatology would be among the least of our worries ...
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we'd be hard-pushed to find anyone pre-Augustine who thought like Darby. At times some of the Fathers can sound somewhat Millenarian, but we don't find any of the elaborate pre-tribulation Rapture business until the 1830s.
None of which is news. You could say, in essence, same thing regarding the reformers. We do not find any concerted challenge to the RCC monopoly on God’s grace until the reformation.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
We do not find any concerted challenge to the RCC monopoly on God’s grace until the reformation.
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Waldensians, Hussites and others would likely disagree with you about that, and justifiably so.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
RCC monopoly! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
RCC monopoly!
What do you get if you pass “Go”?
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
makes perfect sense to say as a parallelism "Peace and mercy on all who follow this rule, and on the Israel of God" as different descriptions of the same community
Steve this comes down to whether we have to make sense of what he says, exegete what he says. You are doing the former.
You were the one who spoke of my interpretation as 'nonsensical' I think.... It does, I also think, help if our exegesis does make sense.
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted'.
quote:
Regarding your overall argument:
it is true that dispensationalism stands entirely on a distinction between natural Israel and the NT church. This is true despite the obvious fact that the two are, in the present aeon combined into a spiritual entity where both partake of the benefits of Christ. That is essentially what Paul teaches both in Eph 2 and Romans 9,10 and 11.
I also in fact make a distinction between 'natural Israel' and 'the Church'. It is the distinction between 'The Church' as the assembly of God's faithful people, Jew and Gentile made one in Christ, and a 'natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
For the faithful the promises are not just fulfilled but 'hyper-fulfilled', in this world or the new heavens and new earth, as is explained at length in Hebrews. For the currently faithless there is salvation only in faith in Christ and they are, without that faith, simply not entitled to the promises anyway.
quote:
If that distinction is not allowed in one’s theology then, despite any protestation, one is committing to replacement theology as a logical extension. This thinking has inexorably led to antsemitism through the centuries.
I repeat CONTINUITY THEOLOGY. The Church, Jew and Gentile combined in faith, is in continuity with OT Israel. Those Jews who reject Jesus cut themselves off from the 'Qahal/Ekklesia/Congregation' of God's people and ipso facto have no covenant rights or promises to rely upon, though God may be gracious despite their failure.
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters would inevitably be seen as traitors to be persecuted. Avoid that step and Christians and Jews will both be dissenters, without power to persecute each other, and seeking instead to persuade with love.
quote:
If on the other hand, one allows for the distinction,then it becomes quite reasonable to say with Paul that natural Israel is temporarily blinded..as a nation, notwithstanding, individual Jews can be saved, until, the ‘times of the gentiles’ are fulfilled. Indeed he teaches an ultimate national salvation for them when they recognise their messiah. This is taught in Zechariah as well.
Dispensationalism not necessary to believe that. IF by 'natural Israel' you mean those who have rejected the Messiah Jesus, yes they are temporarily blinded, yes in the meantime individuals may be saved, and yes somewhere towards the end of the present age the nation as a whole will finally, by the grace of God rather than by covenant right, see the error of rejecting Jesus and will be saved by faith in Christ.
quote:
To say national Israel is no longer a factor in God’s agenda because they are now integrated into the church,is to invert things. It means that the promises to Israel,yet unfulfilled, cannot be fulfilled and thus,God is a liar. It is this charge Paul refutes..”God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew”.
Are you sure Hebrews hasn't somehow been left out of Dispensationalist Bibles?
I'm a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved....
quote:
It is true Darby was a flawed and autocratic individual who created great division in the church of his day. However, for me, his grasp of these things was not flawed,not a misstep. The misstep was made far earlier, by Augustine. The reformation maintained his theology in regard to eschatology and this has continued.
While I do indeed feel that this separation of 'natural Israel' is a misstep, it is a minor one compared to the big misstep which resulted in the whole rapture etc scheme.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ... any more than Jamat's narrow reductionism in boiling everything down to some kind of progression from the RCC to the Reformers and from thence to 19th century eschatological speculations.
It may make for a neatly manageable set of index cards, but as ever, real life is a lot more messy and complex than that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And simpler. Once the apophenia is cut out.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Steve Langton:
quote:
My exegesis took account of that slightly odd phrasing 'the Israel of God' - that is, in Christ Gentiles are 'co-heirs' of the promises making ONE people, all Israel though some natural and some 'adopted
The Israel of God in Gal 6:16 signified saved Jews...and in Christ, all people can be one people in a spiritual sense, certainly, because all who accept Christ as saviour are members of the true church. However, YOUR interpretation or eisigesis is dictated by your assumption that Jew and Gentile actually have the same destiny. In fact Paul obviously separates saved Gentiles and saved Jews. That is what the text says. Yet both, in this aeon, are one people. In a future era, it is a different story.
quote:
‘natural Israel' of those Jews who reject God's Messiah and are faithless and so outside the covenant and its promises.
OK , but God is faithful to his promises and the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional. The fact that nationally speaking they are blinded does not mean that they have lost their destiny as a nation. They are temporarily excluded from the benefits of the covenant but the covenant is not thereby nullified. This is very plain in Romans 11:28.
quote:
What has led to 'anti-semitism' was the idea of setting up 'Christian states' in which Jews as dissenters
Well if you blame the Jews for the death of Christ, that is where it begins.
quote:
.. a bit puzzled what these promises are that won't be fulfilled; and also it would seem an empty fulfilment unless those receiving the fulfilment are also eternally saved
There is a national salvation of Israel promised in scripture. There is no puzzle. Many covenant promises in scripture have no obvious fulfilment yet therefore they must be future. There are many but Is 59:20-60:14 is representative. It is a clear promise to national Israel once they have repented and recognised Jesus as their messiah that they will be the centre of earthly government in God’s kingdom, probably the millennium reign.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I get the impression, Steven, that Christian anti-Semitism predates Constantine and the 'Christian state's thing, so your neat catch-all schema of the source of all ills doesn't quite fit ...
'Steve' please, or 'Stephen' if you insist on being formal....
There would no doubt be some racial anti-Semitism among Gentile converts - but bear in mind that in the first few centuries they were essentially joining a Jewish sect with an emphatically Jewish Messiah and original leaders such as Peter and Paul. If you were seriously racially anti-Semitic could you do that?
Thus at least in the first couple of centuries, what is going on is not racial disagreement but religious disagreement. The disagreement is between Christians who, of whatever ethnicity, accepted Jesus the Jewish Messiah as Lord, and on the other hand Jews who had rejected Jesus as a heretic and who, bear in mind, were often active persecutors of Christians. It superficially appears 'racist' simply because Judaism is so much the religion of one race/ethnic group. A similar confusion could arise in other cases where a religion is very much identified with one race - eg Hinduism with Indians or Shinto with Japanese.
So long as Christianity remained itself a dissenting group within society, and very conscious of its Jewish roots, racial anti-Semitism would be restrained. But in the national church created after Constantine, with a whole Empire of nominal Christians and Jews as a minority dissenting group, anti-Jewish feeling would be heightened and become increasingly racist.
I agree it's not absolutely 'black-and-white' - but I think my basic point still stands.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
Jamat, given the imminent changes on the Ship, I think we'll have to follow this up in a new thread on the new Ship....
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Except that the 2nd century Epistle of Barnabas could be regarded as fairly anti-Semitic too ...
Ok, so it's target is 'Judaising' Christians, which was an issue the apostle Paul had in the previous century of course.
But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.
I'm not trying to excuse the marginalisation and persecution of Jews in post-Constantinian, post-Theodocian Christendom. I'm simply suggesting that things aren't as clear-cut as some of us here like to make out.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by Gamaliel;
quote:
[QB]But I'm not sure your neat distinction between religious and ethnic arguments/issues applied quite so discernibly or clearly back in those days.[/B]
Actually I'm pretty sure myself it wouldn't be all that neat a distinction. To start with, the Jews of that time were pretty much pro-Jewish racists themselves. Over the years the balance changed from Jews using Roman authority to persecute Christians themselves to Jews themselves in a difficult position after the Jewish wars, and by the mid-C2 there were few Jewish converts.
And if you think about it all kinds of other complications over the years....
But certainly NT Christianity is not racially anti-Semitic and realistically can't be, given the Jewish origins of Christianity.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0